Has Global Warming Stopped?

From the Wall Street Journal -



If that statement is correct, why aren't we hearing more about this?

How can the globe be warming if the temperatures aren't changing?

I'm confused.

Hmm...

the Telegraph, here: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 also has a problem with it.

Oh, heck - it's everywhere: Google - "Has global warming stopped".

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

This post has been edited by JohnWho: Jan 6 2008, 04:28 PM

Truly not sure which side of the fence to believe. Undoubtedly both sides firmly believe the data they have is correct - which makes it doubly difficult for the average person to sort through the information.

Perhaps it's simply 'easier' to forget about global warming entirely as few of the experts can seem to agree on the issue - and concentrate on simply treating our poor planet better in general as I suspect few would argue we treat it dismally.

Well, Mara, this is a bit different.

The major controversy has centered on what was primarily causing the warming - mostly natural or mostly man-made occurrences.

This is saying that the data is showing that the warming trend may not be continuing. Certainly worth watching, isn't it?



Separately, if overall global CO2 emmisions have risen, but the temperature has stopped rising, it does make one wonder about the "cause and effect" situation, at least in my opinion.

The reason your not hearing anything about it is because seven years isn't long enough a period to say anything. On the type of scale we are talking about a seven year fluke isn't uncommon. There are many weather patters that have a cycle of several years (El Niño, for example) which can affect the global mean temperature without having any effect on global warming. If global warming did stop in 2001 it will be many years still until we can tell.

That makes sense, and would have more bearing on the situation if the current rise in global warming wasn't only 28 years in length.

Seven years is substantial when compared to 28, in my opinion.

Even if it hasn't stopped, I would think it is worth investigating why this 7 year "blip" is happening, wouldn't you?

If memory serves, I saw a chart showing that the first 50 years of the 1900's being warmer than the last part including the first few of 2000.
If Global warming can be shown to be decreasing, Just think of all the money (research grants) that will be lost, Oh The Huge Manatees!

From the odds and sods I've picked up on TV and press etc., it seems that "global warming" is a naturally recurring event spanning many thousands of years overall, with many 'mini' cycles within the time span all of which are pretty well "natural" (allowing for enormous amounts of nasties put out by volcanic activitiy, large bush/forest fires (which DO occur naturally) and there's a lot of hype with what seems to be a number of people cashing in on the hype! Having said that, obviously all the toxic waste, solid, liquid and gaseous that we are spewing out is doing it's fair share of damage to the environment - and us. However, would it not be better to agitate and pressure for top level action (whatever that can be??) on the grounds of the massive health implications from all this gunk rather than the global warming??

If we are REALLY concerned about our pollution output, the real pressure must begin in the energy areas, transport, power, mining etc, where there are many solutions to switch to cleaner processes - and with careful planning and the will to do it, every western nation could bring in these cleaner alternatives. The big "can't be done"winge seems to be from governments and big business to leave the status as quo, with token changes to show that "something is being done" with out really biting the bullet and introducing changes that will really achieve something.
"Frinstance, cars ... we already have the hybrids making a fairly good contribution - there are other clean engine inventions that have been shelved (mostly by big oil) of which many people are aware, which can be promoted for the manufacturers' to actually begin to phase in. There are also hybrid train engines working on similar principles, but the rail networks in most western countries have been allowed to rot or have been deliberately mothballed (big oil influence again??) to increase the number of semi's on the roads - using more and more fuel..... why not restore the rail systems (lots more employment opportunities), get more hybrid engines on the tracks , reduce the semi numbers (this might also reduce the horrendous road accident toll??).

I know that there are many arguments against the above, mostly stemming from short-term business and financial shock horrors!!! But surely there are enough intelligent, well-informed infulential thinkers out there, with far more knowledge than I who can at least be allowed to shape up some plans and be heard.

I've gone on a bit, I'm afraid, my aplogies to anyone I've bored, but heck, at least we can all have our say here!!

Our understanding of climate change is certainly tenuous, especially for two reasons:
1. We do not have enough trustworthy longitudinal data to determine what is apparently happening. Our data is confined to a few hundred years or past eons (e.g. the last "ice age"). We are in the position of remembering what we did last year, and having a overall view of our life from birith, but not being able to put together changes we underwent every ten years.
2. Even if we had a better understanding about whether we are undergoing a global change or not, and agree on the significance of the data, there does seem to be disagreement about its causes: human or natural, for example.

Now the question to be asked is whether the two problems above are even relevant to prudent human action, when we all know the effects of pollution from the existential microcosms in our daily lives. Pollute a river and the effect upon drinking water is known; driving too many cars and trucks, having too many smokestacks causes the air to be polluted and results in unhealthy smog. Deciding where to put the new trash dump outside of town because the earlier is full is more and more a common point of local debate.

Z

Exactly my point Z - if the enormous investigative and action resources available world-wide were to be use to really act on the pollution effects on human health, it surely would be beneficial in a) "waking up" the powers-that-be to those effect>cause conditions which, theoretically should lead to action in cleaning up our world-wide act? Wishful thinking?? Not if enough people - millions and millions - start asking governing bodies to "please explain - now"!!! I probably haven't expresed this very well, but I'm open to any comments, pro's/cons to clarify

Again, I mostly agree.

I've said earlier on this board that I believe that we should all be better stewards of our environment. I would hope we would all be in agreement with that.

As mentioned - cleaning up and not polluting our rivers and more wisely locating and handling our trash dumps, for example.

But, expending an over abundance of energy and resources cutting back on CO2 emissions only to find out in 50 years that it didn't make any difference while other actions we could have taken would have made a noticeable difference, doesn't seem prudent to me.

We need to know for sure, in so far as practicable, what is our best course of action, and right now it does not appear that "all the facts are in, all the scientists agree, and there is a consensus" on this issue.

There is a significant difference between a "global warming crisis" and being good stewards of our environment. I am completely in favor of being good stewards of our environment. I am hugely in favor of getting off fossil fuels as soon as possible. Lets all remember, we are consuming them at a much faster rate than they are being created. So, we better be looking at alternatives. Plus, imo, it is a national security risk for us to be dependant on anyone other than ourselves for our energy needs.

The Goregasm cronies would have you believe that this is a crisis the likes of which this earth has never seen before. Seems like old Al seems to have forgotten some of his science. There have been 2 mass extinction events since the earth formed. Periods of cooling and periods of heating are part of earths normal processes. Erosion, volcanic activity, earthquakes are all normal process. The planet is in a constant state of evolution. Our problem is that we only see things based on a couple thousand years which isn't even a blink of the eye in geologic time.

All of this hoopla is based on some data taken over the past few years. Does anyone remember back in the 70's when it was said we were headed for another ice age? I have news for the Goregasms, the earth doesn't reverse itself and its processes that quickly. For the sake of argument, lets say that they are basing their statements on data of the past 100 yrs, which is about how long decent weather records have been kept. The earth is approximately 4.6 billion yrs old, give or take a bit. To get the percentage do 1/46,000,000. To me it seems a big stretch to make assumptions based on those numbers. How could any legitimate scientist subscribe to this warming hysteria based on these numbers?

So, then the question becomes, why all this hoopla? Follow the money.

In many respects, we are placed in the position of Pascal's wager. Do we dare take a chance that what appears to be happening with respect to climate change is a temporary anomaly, or take the issue seriously before we reach the fail-safe point when any detrimental change cannot be reversed? Considering we are playing with the future of the planet and humanity's existing on it in any but a state of brutality, I think to err on the side of caution is best.
Z

I think erring on the side of caution is part of being a good steward of your environment. If we can do something cleaner, then we should. It only makes sense. If we can lessen the consumption of a given resource, then we should...We should increase our efforts to recycle more....Etc.... That's just being a good caretaker.

The problem I have with all this is the approach that the Gore cronies have taken. Their constant use of scare tactics is pathetic. Selling carbon offsets? What a farce. These fanatics have managed to covince some people that we're going to destroy the world unless Al and his ilk saves us. "The debate is over..." Exactly, because they don't want to debate the issue. They simply want you to believe what you are told. Ridiculous.

I can't imagine why Al didn't win the Nobel Prize for inventing the internet.

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it