Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/m...
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
It looks to me like there are smart people on both sides of the issue.
Aside from voting, taking action in our own lives, and attempting to encourage others to do the same,
there is really nothing we can do about global warming, if it is a reality.
I really do not think that big oil is influencing anti-global warming readings; that seems too far fetched to me.
When people have strong opinions about things, well, I have seen that skews results in how data is interpreted and even as far as what data is presented (on either side of an argument).
The trick to being a good scientist is to not care about what the results point to, but rather to care about the results,
to want to know what is really going on.
We do not need to be more open minded. No. Rather we need to care about something else entirely.
We need to care only about what is real.
And not to hope ahead of time that the experiment will point a particular way.
The pointing is what we must desire, not the direction.
I personally believe that despite the current evidence for global warming, we have not really been at this for even 100 years. How can we assume we know 1000s of years. The evidence that we get from very old ice, we can not accurately presume that it has not been changed (for example radiation breaks down water releasing oxygen, tricking us into thinking the old world had more oxygen than it did).
There is just too many variables. Unless we observe events ourselves, we can Not be sure. We have only been at this a few decades.
So in the mean time, lets reduce pollutants and become more energy efficient and keep an eye on the data.
If global warming is real, some of Europe will be underwater. However, Canada and Russia (land masses much larger than Europe) will not have to fight soo very hard to stay warm in the winter.
If it is a reality, a lot more land on earth will be much more inhabitable. Life will prosper because of the greater amounts of land that is livable, verses the land that is lost.
I know, what they say, there will not be oxygen for life, but consider with more carbon dioxide, the plants will grow a lot faster (plants are made of carbon).
So I personally would like to speed up global warming, because where I live,
my feet are cold. :(
No, LOL I am just joking with you. LOL :)
Since we really can not do anything other than the above mentioned actions, we might as well just keep an eye on it and if it is a reality, enjoy the greater land mass benefits that will result.
After all most of the earth is cold, not warm.
This is one of the biggest reasons why earthlings must burn things (to stay warm).
Yes, I know about the other factors, but they seem dwarfed compared to these do they not? Honestly the animals will just migrate (as animals do). And not all the ice will melt, there will be more usable land than before, not less.
Again, I am not saying "let's do global warming", but if we are doing it anyway in order to live, then let's recognize the benefits and enjoy the accidental betterment of planet earth,
while we reduce pollutants, become more energy efficient, and keep an eye on the data.
If it turns out global warming is a myth, we still made the planet a better place while we were waiting for more data.
If it turns out it is true, we had the added benefit of taking the precautionary measures that work out either way.
I mean there is really nothing to be fighting over.
Just work together
with regular systematic progress.
Global warming can cause everything, but to cause no climate change is pretty tough to do. I suppose you can claim global warming staved off an ice age, and kept temperatures where they were.
There is also the possibility that global warming canceled the negative phase of a natural warming and cooling cycle.
You want to claim this was said by the MET thern link to the page where the MET said this not some BS denier site
Peisner studied politics, english and SPORTS science. He is not a climate science and has no education in climatology. Just another BS denier site..Prove the MET said no global warming.
You know what this is, it is a continuation of a lie told by David Rose (Original article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a... in an article Jan 29th, 2012 in the dailymail. he took MET data and arranged it to suit his purpose and LIED The MET debunked his lie in their own blog. Dailymail reprinted the same story in 2013 as if it were newly written even though at the time they knew it was a lie. here is a link regarding this
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-bl... Here is the actual MET blog
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/d...
You like quoting professional sites and organizations, but don't link to the actual sites, only cherry picked crap.which demonstrates you are skirting the real issues How will anyone with a real mind believe anything you post when you do that
Rio...Rio Have a little trouble with the first sentence "It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming" get it SURFACE warming Not a pause in GW just a pause in surface warming The combined surface and ocean temps are still warming and that is why there has been no pause in AGW All you deniers have been talking about a pause in GW for more than a month because you can't read and comprehend the simplest of sentences.
You are not allowed to confuse this issue with real data. What is the matter with you? We must always use James Hansen's figures.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
Oh and remember, Al Gore didn't lie in his movie. He just re-adjusted the data.
Oh, and there really was no panic at GISS when they realized their predictions were no good.
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
Besides, to these 'scientists' data means nothing.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
In direct answer to your question. Why not? Anything can happen in Fantasyland!
Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."
So yes, GW can be the cause of the standstill, or not!
ioerr: Your description sounds exactly the correct description of the IPCC.
Truly amazing that alarmist can't follow a hyper link? doesn't really say much for comprehension skills either.
Here's the earlier Executive summary:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/...
ed: C, they offer 3 plausible reasons. You offer none...give skeptical science credit where it's due. That way you can save face.
You are not allowed to mention, pause, hiatus, standstill, or flat-lining as it offensive and heretical and it and it upsets the AGW religious beliefs, have more respect.
That link is worthless. There's not a single climatologist in that outfit, not even in their "academic advisory council." Half of them are economists or politicians.
-----------------------
The UK Met Office seems to think there has been no global warming for 17-Years.
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-global-temperature-standstill-continues/
-----------------------
