Well, it seems that the skeptics can't make up their minds. Some will argue that there has been 'a pause' in warming and temperatures have not increased. Others have stretched that a little bit more and claimed there is a 'cooling'. Neither is actually correct.
If you take the temperature graphs before the 'pause' and look at the rate at which our planet is warming, you'll find that it is about 0.13 degrees per decade. So, lets imagine that you're taking each decade's worth of data, averaging it and taking that average to determine a trend. With ten years, you have one data point. You have one value for the change per decade. How can you determine a rise or fall if you only examine one value?
So, to be specific, the problem is that you need to take data over time to establish a trend. 10 years is too short. 20 years is better. 30 years is better still. And what the warming trend is based on, is 100 years of data. What the skeptics are doing is picking a small part of the overall graph. They're averaging the data from that graph. And they get very little warming. What we need to do is keep taking data for another 20 years and then see what the trend is. If you take too little data, your trend won't be accurate. So it's too early to determine whether temperatures have actually stopped rising or have dropped.
The second point is that the 'pause' is in surface temperatures. And what we mean, again, is in the average temperature measured by various devices over the past decade or two. The ocean temperatures below the surface have continued to rise. So not only have the skeptics picked a small section of the warming graph and drawn a conclusion based on that small set of data, they've also ignored the warming trends in other graphs because that doesn't suit their argument that global warming has stopped.
This type of bias, this inability to analyse data properly, and to prematurely draw conclusions from small data sets in an attempt to establish trends, is exactly why we should leave the analysis to the scientists and not arm-chair 'climatologists' of the internet, armed with an ability to cherry-pick data and apply a line fit using microsoft excel.
Since Global Warming has ended in 2012, all 4 seasons have returned to normal naturally. In some areas it takes time to return certain parts of temperature's back to normal, especially the depths of earth. Especially since almost all the Glaciers have been melted down further than normal and certain winds thats been changed from normal due to high Glaciers are no longer there, so the winds no longer carry temperatures to where they would have gone with high Glaciers are now going else where. Like I said it takes time to completely return to normal after 34 years of Global Warming. Mike
They have to say it is still warming, otherwise their agenda fails even more than it is already failing.
We have some people even in this thread still hanging on to 'the last n years are the warmest on record.' which is so obviously a failing of basic math and logic.
tom skilling on channel 9 (wgn) believes in the process. he,s a nationally respected meteorologist, with over 40 years of experience. will global warming negatively or positively impact your locality? that,s another story.
Because the facts don't matter to the alarmists, they still want your money, warming or no warming.
It's been cooling for at least 12 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
January 2014 was the fourth warmest January in recorded history
1. The pause in warming is for only the air. The warming of the oceans and the melting of ice continues.
2. It is just a pause. To look at only 20 years is cherry picking. Look at the last 100 years. And the PDO might explain the pause.
3. Forbes is a capitalist tool. (their words) It reflects politics, not science.
This is why climate science is best left to climate scientists, because people take information like this completely out of context, without having any real understanding of the bigger picture.
Vast quantities of heat are exchanged between the land, the atmosphere and the oceans, and this occurs in cycles. Such 'pauses' will continue to occur, but do not disprove anything and are, in fact, quite within the bounds of the science of CC.
Despite this observed 'pause' in land temperatres, ocean temperatures have continued to increase. It should also be noted that during this period, land temperatures in the arctic and antarctic have continued to increase also.
Despite what sceptics would like to believe, a peer reviewed survey of research on the subject of 'global climate change' published by active climate scientists between 1993 and 2004 (when the study qas conducted) found that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that human beings are causing global warming. Not a single one.
As a decade, the '00s were warmer than the '90s, and as far as I can recall the only one of the top 10 warmest years in recorded history that isn't in the 21st century is 1998.
Funny definition of "cooling" you have there...
Well I wouldn't say 2 decades, but it hasn't warmed for a long time.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
Ah, yes, Forbes, the business magazine, a completely unbiased group of climatologists.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/fro...
Anyone who thinks this shows cooling has to be deluding themselves. Whatever scientific ability they may have takes second place to their political desire for global warming not to be true.
Because they are agenda driven con artists. Their objective is to sell AGW not accomplish science.
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.”
Because they are liars.
