Posted on 04/05/2008 7:29:34 AM PDT by moderatewolverine
The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.'s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets.
Of course the IPCC spins the news.
"You should look at trends over a pretty long period," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, "and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' "
If that's the case, then why can't the Pacific's El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a "variability" and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn't fit the agenda?
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorial.com ...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Yeah - just like back in the '70's. And guess what - it'll still be man's fault, primarily due to people driving large SUV's. And the government will use this junk science to promote yet another tax/fee/expense upon the brainless drones that occupy this country. And the liberal, government-educated idiots will accept the theory de jour without question.
hahaha...wasn’t there a lot of people calling for putting something into our oceans to melt the ice caps to help prevent global cooling in the 70’s...I forget where I read that.
The Heat is On The Tennessee 2 x 4. Music to read this thread by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q58bDPaslqw&feature=related
Al “Convenient Opinion” Gore is pressure treated.
Ironically all the things to stop global warming are the same that was needed to stop global cooling.
Become communists being the chief way to fix it.
Al Gore is going to have a lot of explaining to do...LOL
Because La Nina is weather and El Nino is climate.
Get with the program or be defunded.
From the article: “You should look at trends over a pretty long period,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, “and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.”
It seems to me that for awhile these boobs were hyping 5 and 10 year trends as proof of man-made warming. Now, when that doesn’t pan out this clod suggests a longer period be observed. Just how long? Back to the point that makes their point appear valid and no further. But, if we go back even further say millenia(Earth is several billion years old and millenia are still merely a blink of the eye in comparison) one would note that the Earth has warmed and cooled many times without the assistance of burned fossil fuels.
I still don’t know what their explanation for this being man-made is. Look up Dansgaard-Oeschger events and you’ll find that 23 times in the past(20,000 years prior to the creation of the SUV) we have a record of rapid warming of 8 degrees celsius in one case over a few decades followed by a gradual return to previous temps over the next few hundred years. They don’t know what caused it and it was considerably more dramatic warming than now.
“The little ice age of ~400 to 200 years ago has been interpreted as the cold part of a D-O cycle, putting us (even without the effects anthropogenic global warming) in a period of warming climate” (Bond et al. 1999).
After all, a normal climate should NEVER change.
It wouldn't be cooling if it hadn't warmed first...< / sarc >
Not an ice age, but probably a Dalton minimum, which will be difficult enough with 6.5 billion people. Solar cycle 24 is late, and the longer solar cycle 23 lasts, the more likely it is to be a low one. Solar cycle 25 is definitely going to be one of the lowest in centuries because of the slowing of the Sun’s conveyor belts, which predates a low solar cycle by 20 years or so.
As for global warming alarmists, what happened was they mixed up cause and effect in looking at precipitation systems. They set up positive feedback loops in their models when the loops were actually _negative_ feedback loops. Roy Spencer has outlined this pretty succinctly at his website and in his scientific paper.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
They had me worry about freezing to death when I was a youngster. Bunch of a-holes pulling a big scam is all this GW thing is,
Now there are two people who are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.