Didn’t you just answer your own question? and isn’t the implication that the earth would have been even hotter had it not been for the sulphur compounds in the air (which is not a solution I would want or a viable compromise long-term)
Here’s another article by a different journalist about the same study.
[quote]Simon Lewis, of the University of Leeds, said that the study could be easily misinterpreted: “While sulphur emissions do have a cooling effect, this is only short-term. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a long-term planetary warming.”
[/quote]
China’s power stations generate ‘future spike’ in global warming
This one doesn’t contain the phrase, “halt in global warming”.
[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Here’s another article by a different journalist about the same study.
[quote]Simon Lewis, of the University of Leeds, said that the study could be easily misinterpreted: “While sulphur emissions do have a cooling effect, this is only short-term. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a long-term planetary warming.”
[/quote]
China’s power stations generate ‘future spike’ in global warming[/quote]
The article I cited indicated the same, Doc. I’m just saying that this type of news confuses the issue quite a bit. I understand the claim that the sulfur emissions have a cooling effect. What I don’t understand is why we (me) are only reading about this now??? Was this not known a long time ago?
I agree with you Tigerman. Something is fishy.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
So, no warming since 1998… is that right? If yes, then, how does that jive with this:
How can nine of the top ten hottest years on record have happened since 1998 (and 2010 be tied for the hottest) if no warming happened after 1998? Are they saying that the earth got hot and stayed hot but didn’t get hotter? But, isn’t the earth supposed to keep getting hotter as more GHG are put into the atmosphere?[/quote]
You have answered your own question. The whole “no warming has occurred in the past decade” was used by the denialists for a few years around the 2008 mark. Of course they neglected to point out the chosen starting point for reference was 1998, and was the hottest year on record (according to most but not all doing the measurements, but they wouldn’t tell you that either). They also neglected to say most of the hottest years in the top ten for the century fall in the last decade also. Cherry picking dishonesty at its best.
The standard answer to this has always been 10 years is not long enough to deviate from long term predictions and global warming has never been a linear process with many other factors, ENSO, sun spots as well as other emissions all playing a role in the year to year variability. The idea that CO2 is not the only gas that has an effect on our atmosphere should be no surprise.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Ninety percent certain? I thought this was settled conclusively?[/quote]
There are still some climate scientists who have doubts that the warming is caused by man to the extent the IPCC says. There was a poll recently looking at climate scientists who work in this field and those who publish and compared it to the public. From the scientists perspective, something like 98.5% accept the IPCCs overall conclusions. Even those who don’t like Richard Linzden STILL think we should be warming as a result of increased CO2, and note we have had a temperature rise, just think some things like clouds haven’t been factored in well enough and natural variation may in part have been contributing.
Its just when you get to the public domain, the number drops to something in the 50’s% (in the US anyway) and if you ask the Republicans, only about 36% believe global warming is real at all.
edit/ Here is the paper I think. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008
This industrial pollutant effect has been known for a while. In the 1970s USSR’s dirty industry caused similar slowdown, resuming after it collapsed in 1980s.
So much for a follow up discussion.
Thanks Mick for explaining things. It is so complicated and it seems that the press is not up to the task.
Whattayawantmetosay? I asked some questions and you and Vorko answered them. I’m satisfied. For the time being.
I have to admit my curiosity is aroused.
On the one hand, the idea that greenhouse gases warm the planet and since we are pumping gases that will stay in our atmosphere for hundreds of years, our planet is slowly warming.
On the other hand, reading the right wing news, Climategate, Emails, hockey stick, Al Gore, manbearpig, polar bears, big hoax, communism, scientist with no background in climatology, paid for by the energy industry and used to fight against the tobacco industry says global warming is not real.
At some point you start asking yourself, do those on the right see the nonsense, the lies being told by the right wing politicians? Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more insane, along comes the tea party express. What is it? Anti abortion, anti evolution, anti global warming, pro top 1% of population, anti providing health care for all and education in the States now costs about the price of a house. Oh and I hear in order to protect companies IP they are now proposing to ban websites, putting them on par with China and other repressive regimes.
I think for a lot of people around the world they are looking at the States, and thinking, it seems the US has gone off the deep end, lost the plot completely. How did this happen?
[quote=“Mick”]
I think for a lot of people around the world they are looking at the States, and thinking, it seems the US has gone off the deep end, lost the plot completely. How did this happen?[/quote]
Of course the world wonders about the US. After having successfully destroyed its own economy, the world is wondering who’s going to commit seppuku next.
You can’t have a ‘green economy’ unless the ‘regular economy’ is thriving.
Sulfur=acidic rain? no?
Long time no comment about our favorite AGW nutbag…algore…
[quote]Gore (Re)Sells A Lie
Climate Fraud:
Al Gore is going to “connect the dots” between climate change and severe weather. Given that the former vice president has been coloring outside the lines for years, there’s no reason to believe what he’ll say.
Gore launched Tuesday the latest phase of his attempt to save man from himself. Through the Climate Reality Project, he intends “to reveal the complete truth about the climate crisis.”
Earth’s most famous global warming alarmist, whose selection as a Nobel Laureate lowered the bar for that prize, expects that on Sept. 14 the world will listen raptly to his group’s narrative on the “climate crisis.”
During this 24-hour slice of “reality,” the Climate Reality Project’s website says, the world will focus “on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.”
Busybody Gore hasn’t done too little. But he is too late. The global warming scare that he’s helped gin up is growing as cold as a morgue slab.
Rather than being so fixed on the Sept. 14 event, Gore should have been keeping up with the news. Had he done so, he would have learned that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. This isn’t the claim of some crackpot “denier,” but of Phil Jones, a credentialed alarmist who is director of research at East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit.
And it’s not exactly fresh news, either. Jones, who played a major role in the climate-gate email scandal, made the statement, which was resurrected last week by James Delingpole in the London Telegraph, in 2010.
Mentioned by Delingpole in the same piece is the academic paper “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008,” which shows there’s been no warming since 1998.
[color=#40BFFF]*[/color]
Facts don’t mean much to the global warming alarmists, even though they claim to have them on their side.
They’re more concerned about emotional responses to their hysterical appeals, and how they can use those responses to further their agenda, which has everything to do with social control, political strength and influence, and nothing to do with the environment.
Gore wants people to use his new campaign to “discover for themselves the truth about climate change.” But he doesn’t want them to know the truth — he wants them to buy his propaganda. He knows the truth will make them the “deniers” he ridicules without reason[/quote]
Al got to keep those payments up on the Cali mansion by the sea…LOL!
Those eco-facists make me so mad.
TC, as I mentioned earlier the paper was in relation recent warming up to 2008. Skeptical science covers it well. Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Basically, cherry picking the data set, cherry picking the sample range, misrepresenting the statements made by Phil Jones, ignoring the fact a positive trend existed even then and that the sample of data used was too short a time frame to fall outside long term predictions. Your article then ignores the last two years temperatures, which make warming since 1995 statistically significant by any data set you use.
Blatant dishonesty at every turn.
I tired of lies and lying; of not knowing what is a lie and what is the truth.
(and then Bogie says, "Well, now you are dangerous, sweetheart.)
Yep, I saw the extent of glacial retreat first hand this summer in Alaska. It’s easy to notice when signposts at glacier viewing spots show you what the glacier looked like 50 decades ago. Craziest was the Kennicott Glacier which was once so high that the people living around it did not know they were in a valley, nor could they see mountains on the other side. The glacier has dropped 300m in HEIGHT since the 1920s. Most people I met in Alaska believe in global warming. They see the reality all around them from melting permafrost to glacial retreat to villages close to being overrun by the sea.
There’s been a lot of guff on those cry-baby save-the-polar-bear left-wing blogs that Fox news doesn’t comment about global warming when it’'s hot outside like they do when it’s cold. Well golly gee. Go cry a river of green.
That’s a bad picture, because I blew it up.
Fox is clearly being very conscientious about making sure that they do not create any confusion in the minds of their viewers about the difference between weather and climate. They take that responsibility very seriously. When it’s hot outside.