Jump to content

Met Office Reports, Quietly, Global Warming Stopped 12 Years Ago.


Guest Deisel
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail...t-prove-it.html

No fan fair. No ALGORE mea culpa's, no MSNBC hand wringing. Just dumped the report out there. I love it.

"Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two....."

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz29Jkh6h9n

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Edited by Deisel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Untrue. china is growing as fast as we decrease our c02 output if not faster. so is India. Somthing needs to happen. I can't say I agree fully why the earth is getting hotter but I know that emptying c02 will destroy our ocean and that will destroy everything else. I'm not gonna go into the science but it is going to get very bad unless Americans and europe change, other nations will not without our technology. just research dead zones in the ocean and carbon sink holes and it will tell the story. Other nations won't stop, we must lead the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Untrue. china is growing as fast as we decrease our c02 output if not faster. so is India. Somthing needs to happen. I can't say I agree fully why the earth is getting hotter but I know that emptying c02 will destroy our ocean and that will destroy everything else. I'm not gonna go into the science but it is going to get very bad unless Americans and europe change, other nations will not without our technology. just research dead zones in the ocean and carbon sink holes and it will tell the story. Other nations won't stop, we must lead the way.

What this story says is the EARTH is NOT heating UP regardless of mans Co2 output. The heating and cooling of our planet is not being coerced by MAN. Antartic sea ice is at all time highs now as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never understood why some champion continual pollution of the Earth. We get it snak, you don't give a **** about the planet you live on, now come to the realization that most of us generally don't give a **** about your opinion on it either.

Let me tell you something Big mout. I care more abt this country our environment then 95% of the planet. I venture into the outdoors, I risk my life in the outdoors and I have spent countless days in the outdoors. What I don't want is LIES, Bullsh.. to be spread around mudying the waters. Man Made gw is Bullsh.. and its been used to steal resources from our treasury in the name of GREEN ENERGY. YOu know why our energy costs are so dang high? GREEN policy's mandated by No goodnicks like YOU. If solar and wind were so great, why haven't they takin over? Because they CANNOT. Coal, oil and gas are Not killing the planet, Co2 is a natural element needed for life and albit smog and air quality(that can improve and HAS IMPROVED) this is not a demon worth smoking our economy over and driving our country into the dark ages. Rolling black outs, $8 gasoline, odd or even drive days for residences and MASS TRANSIT trains. scrw that dude. Grow up and learn something. Edited by Deisel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how the nutjobs were able to convince the general public that CO2 is a pollutant...

Same way they continue to sell Obama as a leader. Lies and obfuscation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to all the oil in the gulf of mexico?

We have over 100 years worth of oil in our own country that we can get now. There is much more out there waiting as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we ate only slightly "heating" the earth, we are polluting the ocean by smothering it in c02. We are mimicking a natural event that destroyed the oceans millions of years ago. There are things called carbon sink holes in the ocean, this is a fact, those sink holes absorb c02 naturally. Unfortunately when to much c02 is absorbed it is toxic to the ocean. Have you ever heard of "dead zones". This is a product of the ocean absorbing to much c02. It kills fish by poisoning plankton and killing them. My point isn't we are heating the earth, my point is we are poisoning the ocean. The ocean absorbs c02. the last time a volcanic event on earth pumped c02 into the aptnosphere at a high rate it caused a mass extinction in the ocean. Sorry not sure if we are heating the earth but definitely policing the ocean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you something Big mout. I care more abt this country our environment then 95% of the planet. I venture into the outdoors, I risk my life in the outdoors and I have spent countless days in the outdoors. What I don't want is LIES, Bullsh.. to be spread around mudying the waters. Man Made gw is Bullsh.. and its been used to steal resources from our treasury in the name of GREEN ENERGY. YOu know why our energy costs are so dang high? GREEN policy's mandated by No goodnicks like YOU. If solar and wind were so great, why haven't they takin over? Because they CANNOT. Coal, oil and gas are Not killing the planet, Co2 is a natural element needed for life and albit smog and air quality(that can improve and HAS IMPROVED) this is not a demon worth smoking our economy over and driving our country into the dark ages. Rolling black outs, $8 gasoline, odd or even drive days for residences and MASS TRANSIT trains. scrw that dude. Grow up and learn something.

You are really telling someone to grow up and learn something? Really guy? Get the **** out of here. Go read the post above this one if you want to learn something. And you're right, c02 is a natural element found all around us, but excess amounts of it trap heat, which in effect warm the Earth. Can you explain why the average temperature has gone up every year over the last 50?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/04/24/172739/bachmann-harmless-co2/?mobile=nc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we ate only slightly "heating" the earth, we are polluting the ocean by smothering it in c02. We are mimicking a natural event that destroyed the oceans millions of years ago. There are things called carbon sink holes in the ocean, this is a fact, those sink holes absorb c02 naturally. Unfortunately when to much c02 is absorbed it is toxic to the ocean. Have you ever heard of "dead zones". This is a product of the ocean absorbing to much c02. It kills fish by poisoning plankton and killing them. My point isn't we are heating the earth, my point is we are poisoning the ocean. The ocean absorbs c02. the last time a volcanic event on earth pumped c02 into the aptnosphere at a high rate it caused a mass extinction in the ocean. Sorry not sure if we are heating the earth but definitely policing the ocean

The Oceans are HUGE players in the CO2 game. They produce tons and consume tons. We have NO idea what the balance of that is, because our oceans are too vast, deep and hostile for us to venture into their depths. The Volcanic vents coming from the Marianna trench, a PRESERVE made so by the Pen of George W. Bush, which Quadrupled the marine sanctuarys, is just an example. We thought all the oil that seeped from the oil rig in La was going to be a natural disaster on par with nothing we'd seen before. The net results were a few tar balls on beachs and a few hundred birds dying and a small % of the area's fish and wildlife. We lose more birds to 1 windmill per year so thats not really a disaster. The gulf scrubbed that area clean so quick it made our heads spin. NOAA and ocean studies COULD not believe how it all was naturally ridden of.

We just have no clue what the ocean can and cannot do and they cover 66% of the planet so their vastness is enormous. I for 1 want strict fishing and whaling laws across the planet. I want serious laws controlling dumping and toxic runoff into our waters. I want as much protection for our oceans as makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really telling someone to grow up and learn something? Really guy? Get the **** out of here. Go read the post above this one if you want to learn something.

Brave, I'm telling you that you're a big mout. and you haven't a clue to what spin you're taking to heart. And again. GROW the Phuck up and don't misrepresent my posts or my thoughts. Try that Biden junior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brave, I'm telling you that you're a big mout. and you haven't a clue to what spin you're taking to heart. And again. GROW the Phuck up and don't misrepresent my posts or my thoughts. Try that Biden junior.

Why would I need to misrepresent your posts? You do a good enough job of that yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Oceans are HUGE players in the CO2 game. They produce tons and consume tons. We have NO idea what the balance of that is, because our oceans are too vast, deep and hostile for us to venture into their depths. The Volcanic vents coming from the Marianna trench, a PRESERVE made so by the Pen of George W. Bush, which Quadrupled the marine sanctuarys, is just an example. We thought all the oil that seeped from the oil rig in La was going to be a natural disaster on par with nothing we'd seen before. The net results were a few tar balls on beachs and a few hundred birds dying and a small % of the area's fish and wildlife. We lose more birds to 1 windmill per year so thats not really a disaster. The gulf scrubbed that area clean so quick it made our heads spin. NOAA and ocean studies COULD not believe how it all was naturally ridden of.

We just have no clue what the ocean can and cannot do and they cover 66% of the planet so their vastness is enormous. I for 1 want strict fishing and whaling laws across the planet. I want serious laws controlling dumping and toxic runoff into our waters. I want as much protection for our oceans as makes sense.

http://destinationcarbonneutral.co.nz/what-are-carbon-dioxide-emissions-co2-and-why-are-they-harmful/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink

I know this isn't political so you probably don't care but either way here you go. I figure you can read it all if you find time in-between your political posts.

I agree the amount of c02 we are releasing now probably isn't affecting climate as much as several other factors but it does contribute some. Maybe enough to tip the scales and cause the earth to heat quicker than it would naturally. The sun is in a stage of high activity now and that contributes most of the heating I'm sure but, poisoning of the ocean is definitely happening and a significant amount is man made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have never been a huge believer in Global Warming, but why exacerbate the potential effects because it's not convenient for us? People need to stop talking about being adults and making sacrifices when they won't do it their ******* selves.

OK, lets play along. Lets do away, NOW with coal, oil and Gas. Whats gonna happen to civilization, within 1 year? Colapse will occur within 2 months. Better arm yourself in that case, cause Man couldn't ship food or anything else. We couldn't heat our homes. Hospitals would shut down because oill based products that they use, the life flights, air travel, ocean travel, etc. All based on a premise that Co2, which actually greens our planet, is KILLING it, based on No evidence. BTW - We have warmed less then 1 degree in 140 years, FOLLOWING a mini ice age. Go figure. Edited by Deisel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I need to misrepresent your posts? You do a good enough job of that yourself.

And I have never been a huge believer in Global Warming, but why exacerbate the potential effects because it's not convenient for us? People need to stop talking about being adults and making sacrifices when they won't do it their ******* selves.

This is why is respond to these posts with ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE laugh.png (minus a few more smileys)

Those were actually the OP's responses to anything that didn't entirely dispute GW in years past.

I'm not convinced by all of the GW studies & arguments, but I don't deny all of it by any means. For now ALGORE is just that specific poster, on this specific topic. No point in arguing, I instead leave that to ManBearPig (another poster), the antithesis of ALGORE who manifestly argues the opposing viewpoint in a strikingly identical manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking - http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-absorption-co2-not-shrinking

Recent claims by climate change alarmists have raised the possibility that terrestrial ecosystems and particularly the oceans have started loosing part of their ability to absorb a large proportion of man-made CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because currently only about 40% of anthropogenic emissions stay in the atmosphere, the rest is sequestered by a number of processes on land and sea. The warning that the oceans have reached their fill and their capacity to remove atmospheric CO2 is accompanied by the prediction that this will cause greenhouse warming to accelerate in the future. A new study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data and concludes that the portion of CO2 absorbed by the oceans has remained constant since 1850.

Wolfgang Knorr from the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, has published a study in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?” Knorr combines data from ice cores, direct atmospheric measurements, and emission inventories to show that the fraction of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has stayed constant over the past 160 years, at least within the limits of measurement uncertainty. Here is the paper's abstract:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

This work directly contradicts studies that claim to have shown that the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean has already slowed. Knorr's work is backed up by a study in Nature by S. Khatiwala et al.: “Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the ocean .” Noting that buring fossil fuels has increased the level of to CO2 in the atmosphere, the authors state “the ocean plays a crucial role in mitigating the effects of this perturbation to the climate system, sequestering 20 to 35 per cent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.” They found that sequestration by the oceans had not diminished significantly and that land plants have greatly increased their absorption of the gas. Quoting from the paper:

Our results indicate that ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased sharply since the 1950s, with a small decline in the rate of increase in the last few decades. We estimate the inventory and uptake rate of anthropogenic CO2 in 2008 at 140 ± 25 Pg C and 2.3 ± 0.6 Pg C yr-1, respectively. We find that the Southern Ocean is the primary conduit by which this CO2 enters the ocean (contributing over 40 per cent of the anthropogenic CO2 inventory in the ocean in 2008). Our results also suggest that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, subsequently turning into a sink. Taken over the entire industrial period, and accounting for uncertainties, we estimate that the terrestrial biosphere has been anywhere from neutral to a net source of CO2, contributing up to half as much CO2 as has been taken up by the ocean over the same period.

Some have suggested that reducing human CO2 emissions by 50% would bring atmospheric levels into equilibrium. This new report raises the possibility that, if human emissions were lowered, absorption levels by the oceans and land plants might decline as well, maintaining the growth in overall atmospheric CO2 levels. It also seems possible that, if man's release of carbon dioxide is greatly reduced, the terrestrial biosphere could shift from a net absorber to a producer of greenhouse gas. The change in sources and sinks over time is presented graphically in figure S3 from the paper's supplementary information, shown below:

Figure S3: Evolution of anthropogenic CO2 sources and sinks between 1765 and 2005. Sources, shown as positive values, include fossil fuel burning (with a small contribution from cement production) and changes in land use. Sinks are shown as negative values, and include the atmosphere, ocean, and land biosphere. Error envelope, indicated by broken lines and the shaded area, includes estimated uncertainties in the source terms (5% for fossil fuel emissions, and ±0.5 PgC/y for land-use change).

These observations imply that all the hoopla about reining in CO2 levels may be working at odds with nature, that Earth's environment already has mechanisms in place to regulate changing levels of greenhouse gases. The observation that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, and has subsequently become a sink, indicate that the problem is not as simple as shutting down factories and banning SUVs. With nature regulating GHG levels on its own, perhaps we have time to look more closely into the matter before we leap off an economic cliff at the urging of the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore.

Ocean Acidification Reconsidered

Many climate scientists and ecologists seem to seek the dark cloud instead of the silver lining for any new discovery. A case in point is concern over increased ocean acidification due to the absorption of greater amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. While the previous panic over bleached coral reefs seems to have abated (see “Bleached Coral Reefs Bounce Back”), researchers continue to warn that many species of invertebrates will disappear as the oceans acidify. But new observations indicate that the effects of increased CO2 on marine environments will be more complex than previously predicted. In fact, a new study shows that some of these species may benefit from ocean acidification, growing bigger shells or skeletons that provide more protection.

Because different ocean creatures use different forms of calcium carbonate for their shells, marine scientist Justin Ries of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hypothesized that not all ocean organisms would respond the same way to increased acidity. Ries and two colleagues from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Anne L. Cohen and Daniel C. McCorkle, exposed marine organisms from 18 marine species to four levels of seawater acidity. As described in an article from ScienceNOW, the first environment matched today's atmospheric CO2 levels. The second and third were set at double and triple the pre-Industrial CO2 levels, conditions the IPCC has predicted to occur over the next century. The fourth CO2 level was 10 times pre-Industrial levels, a level not seen since before the onset of the Pleistocene Ice Age more than 3 million years ago.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why is respond to these posts with ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE laugh.png (minus a few more smileys)

Those were actually the OP's responses to anything that didn't entirely dispute GW in years past.

I'm not convinced by all of the GW studies & arguments, but I don't deny all of it by any means. For now ALGORE is just that specific poster, on this specific topic. No point in arguing, I instead leave that to ManBearPig (another poster), the antithesis of ALGORE who manifestly argues the opposing viewpoint in a strikingly identical manner.

Please link to where I argued against manmade global warming by replying ALGORE, ALGORE, ALGORE. I cited a number of inconsistancys and out right lies used by ALGORE and his stupid sophmoric movie. Not what you are portraying here, ATL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please link to where I argued against manmade global warming by replying ALGORE, ALGORE, ALGORE. I cited a number of inconsistancys and out right lies used by ALGORE and his stupid sophmoric movie. Not what you are portraying here, ATL.

That would be in the archives, under previous screen name. I don't feel like digging that up for this. ManBearPig would probably argue further, possibly even find the requested links but I am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesel you obviously didn't read the link I posted on carbon sink holes. No one suggested carbon sink holes are getting maxed out, quite the opposite. They will absorb as much as we feed them. When carbon levels get high in these areas it kills all the fish and plankton. Carbon sinks will expand with more c02. They will just get bigger and bigger. They will not shrink if there is more carbon they will get bigger thus creating dead zones in the ocean. They are our planets natural response to elevated c02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...