Now that we KNOW global warming has stopped, can the dems shut up already?

Question

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-5000117,00.html

These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?

Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn't warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years.

Sea ice now isn't melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.

Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren't increasing and the rain in Australia hasn't stopped falling.

What's more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago.

In fact, it's even a bit cooler. So, dude, where's my global warming?

Answer 1

First of all man Global Warming hasn't stopped.

It will take a long time to stop global warming

Answer 2

So because a newspaper makes these claims without proving they're true, that makes them factual?

Wrong.

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...

Strike 1.

Arctic sea ice, which shattered the previous record for greatest melt last year, is melting almost as much this year.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...

Strike 2.

Number of extreme weather events, including cyclones, has risen rapidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trend...

Strike 3, you're out.

Answer 3

Dems never shut up the only hot thing is the hot air comming from their mouths.

Answer 4

WE KNOW IT HASN'T STOPPED.

This is just bad data from a very provincial political journalist.  Note how he thinks the Australian Prime Minister is the key person involved.  

Here's the real deal, from NASA. (The red line).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The same thing applies to his ridiculous claims about sea level.  Once again, the verified data:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

And even if the "Dems" shut up, what are you going to do about these guys?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 5

The problem with the global warming issue is that the democrats have used it as an excuse to increase the scope and power of government, without any evidence that more government will help.  

Maybe it is happening, maybe not, but who can tell, anymore? The number of polar bears is the highest it has been in ten years, but it is the new poster child of the movement, so it got declared as a threatened species.  Temperatures in cites are  much higher than in the surrounding undeveloped areas but there is relatively little discussion of heat islands and how they influence public opinion on global warming.  A hurricane hits New Orleans, which has had several near misses before sitting right in prime hurricane area, and people actually try to blame global warming for it.  I even heard people blame global warming for the tsunami that hit southeast asia a few years back.  

What can be done to end the hysteria so we can discuss the issue?

Answer 6

Friend AGW is a tool being used to create a religion. The bible of that religion is called “The Limits to Growth”. The first purpose of this religion is to allow all of the world major industries to be united under a single board of directors. The second purpose of this religion is to unite all the nations of the world under the control of these same corporate politicians. The documentation for this is contained in these three major documents and several more.

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

Das Kapital (the Capitalist) by Karl Marx

The German Ideology by Karl Marx

The reason very few even supposedly well educated people do not see what is happening in front of their eyes is they have never read the books that document what they are going to do.

Someone once asked Eisenhower, Patton and some of the other allied generals how they were able to defeat Hitler and the German generals. There reply was, we read their books and so we knew what they thought and knowing what they thought we knew what they were going to do and so we were able to defeat them. Having read all of these works and more I know the minds of these tyrants and knowing their minds I know what they are going to do. But as I do not have power and control all I can do is try and educate enough of the blind in how to see so the world might be saved from them.

Answer 7

OK, let's look for ourselves. Since you asked us to.

1. Take a close look at the vertical scale on the left-hand side: "Temperature anomaly (1979-2007 baseline)". What does that tell you? It tells you that the AVERAGE temperature for the period 1979-2007 was zero, on this graph. And what does the graph show? Every single month between 1998 and 2007 was above average. EVERY MONTH warmer than average. 1998 was hotter than usual because of a big El Niño that year, and 2008 has been (and will be) cooler than usual because of a big La Niña this year. If you look at the long-term CLIMATE trend, removing the weather trend, it's been consistently upward for decades. Here's a graph:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2626...

2. Same comment. Note how the idiots produced this graph include the "El Niño warming" circle, while deliberately excluding the "La Niña cooling" circle that they should have included, had they been honest. (Which they aren't.)

3. Gee, it sure looks like seas are rising to me. I'd like to check the source to make sure, but CCAR doesn't have this graph on their website, as far as I can tell, nor the data to support it. So how do we know that Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp hasn't distorted the truth (again)? In fact, they have. Here's a true, global, satellite derived graph of sea surface height. And it's not pretty.

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/oc...

4. A "Global sea ice anomaly" is an inherently biased indicator, because in a warming world you expect Arctic sea ice to be declining (since the Arctic is composed mostly of sea ice), but it should be INCREASING in the southern hemisphere (because the Antarctic is composed mostly of land ice -- and when land ice breaks up, it falls into the sea, increasing the amount of sea ice.) And hey, guess what? When we look at the two hemispheres singly, that's exactly what we find.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

5. So there are fewer cyclones around Australia? And that's supposed to be a global indicator?

6. Ditto. Since when is rainfall in Australia a global indicator? In fact, global climate models predict that in many places total rainfall will not change much. What will change is that it will come in shorter, sharper bursts. That means more floods, separated by longer droughts. There's nothing in this graph that indicates climate models are wrong.

7. World Temperature (Reconstructed).  Based on Loehle 2007, a study which explicitly excludes tree-ring data. In other words, he threw out 80% of the temperature proxy data that's available (and most climatologists would argue, he threw out the BEST 80%) to get his graph. And his result? Since his proxy data stops in 1980, the highest proxy temp on his graph was in 870 AD, at .58° C. But that value has already been exceeded in 2005 -- two years before Loehle's paper -- at .62° C. So the caption, "And it's been hotter" is blatantly false.

Well that's what you get when you trust the newspaper to tell you about climate, instead of doing your own research.

Answer 8

Anyone who bought Al Gore's book should get a refund.

Answer 9

Global Warming didn't stop.

Ice is STILL melting!!

Answer 10

no it hasnt. 3 days is nothing.. It is still hot and the glaciers are melting

Answer 11

Waa Waa waa.  People have been saying the same thing on this section forever.  

Oh and posting the actual text of your source instead of a question is pretty lame.

Answer 12

Yes but if the Democrats don't permit drilling things could get bad.

Answer 13

How can you *possibly* believe this? What utter tripe. I just posted a reference to new research saying that hurricanes have increased over the last century. To say that the poles are not warming is blatantly false. 1998 was a huge temperature spike. Of course the temperature didn't rise straight up after that. But look at the graph, the early part of 2000's were hotter than the 1990s apart from 1998. Only a fool would come to your conclusion.

Answer 14

no offense, but may-b its the othr way around, sea ice is spreadin, ya, but 2 places sea ice shouldnt! and no, its not cooling, its like, as hot as evr, cuz of the ozone layer, i dunno how ur source got the info, but i no its wrong!