BBC - Global warming 'dips this year' »
Posted By bobo-in-texas 6 months, 1 week ago in Science & TechnologyGlobal temperatures will drop this year UN meteorologists have said. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998.
Read Full Story at news.bbc.co.uk »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 121
-
-
-
0%
bobo-in-texas6 months, 1 week ago
Global Cooling Causes Armed Clashes in Canada
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/brrrr...
Reply
-
-
0%
Dionys6 months, 1 week ago
"A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted. "
"But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming. "
You mean the Inconvenient Truth of actually reading the article and understanding that it doesn't support your global-warming-denier stance?
Reply -
-
0%
Endoscopy6 months, 1 week ago
That is so right. Average temperature for the decade is flat with a downturn this year. Russian scientists are saying a new Ice age is coming and a scientist has found by testing that Greenhouse gases don't have a greenhouse effect. We just don't have a leg to stand on. Since Al Gores scientists were other specialties than climatology and anthropological climatology we need to bow down to his greater wisdom. Especially since there were no lies involved with his movie.
Say your mantra "Global warming is coming."
Reply
-
-
0%
Isoparm6 months, 1 week ago
As usual you are cherry-picking what you want to believe. Of course you wouldn't mention the opposing view in the article about a heating trend now would you?. It is a shifting heat balance that is a result of increased green-house gases. Heat and temperature are NOT the same thing. As to where this heat change will take us, remains to be seen. The easiest indicator of which way the balance trends, is to see whether there is a net gain, or loss of global ice mass. Decrease in ice, more heat. Increase in ice, less heat. The polar cap is shrinking, and nations are plotting new polar water-ways for ships. A large portion of ice in Antarctica is breaking-up. It's in all the news! There is a global net ice loss. Check for yourself. This is not that difficult to understand.
Where did your bias come from? Why do you ignore the obvious things to look at, and just cherry-pick items that fit your view?
If you don't understand the science, you will find others here, willing to help you.
Reply-
0%
Silverghost6 months, 1 week ago
Yes, yes, of course, Al Gore, the astute scientist! I should be ashamed of my education, not being able to see the science of this matter. What's wrong with me?
Gee, maybe it wasn't so cold this winter. Brr! Spring is having a hard time heating up, it seems. No, it must be my unscientific imagination! LOL -Rev. S
Reply -
0%
Mdiar6 months, 1 week ago
Isoparm, I have a question. My talents tend to lie in other directions then the sciences, however, heat is energy, correct? Can you think of any way, theoretically speaking, that the excess heat created in some regions of the world could be harnessed as an energy source? It would be extremely difficult to do so, I know. It would be spread out over vast areas and it would be in a form that is probably difficult to harness. Perhaps not harness this energy but find some way to have this energy be used in some manner? Perhaps in a phase change, much as how an ice cube would cool a glass of water (No, I am not advocating giant floating ice cubes... LOL). Like I said, my background is most definitely not in the sciences. My talents lie in other directions and I know what I'm asking is probably not viable in the slightest.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest6 months, 1 week ago
Let me see if I got this right.
The current down trend in global temps is a "fraction of a degree" due to El Nino. And that "fraction of a degree" is about only 7/10th of 1 degree C.
And this should not be compared to the horrors a .72 degree C. increase in global temperatures could bring.
Did math somehow dramatically chance in the last 20 years?
Reply-
0%
Silverghost6 months, 1 week ago
Don't know, Injest. This higher mathematics is mind boggling! LOL -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
quackpot6 months, 1 week ago
Did you even read the article, Wolfie?
The article says that the current cooling is TEMPORARY, due to the effects of La Nina. the article goes on to say "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
Reply-
0%
capn_caveman6 months, 1 week ago
You have it right quackpot. I've done a ton of reading on this issue and this recent announcement of 2008 being a slightly cooler year comes as no surprise to me. As a matter of fact, I believe this article confirms the accuracy of predictions of the latest global warming models. A recently developed model has predicted that global warming will essentially plateau until 2009 - then things are going to get very interesting.
Source:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08...
Reply
-
-
0%
simonsez6 months, 1 week ago
The truth will come out ... our driving is not influencing climate in any permanent fashion.
Reply -
-
-
0%
libsRfunny6 months, 1 week ago
"The article explains this...an effect of the current La Nina."
It also says recent warming was due to El Nino. Point is, there are plenty of other explanations for "climate change" than CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions have almost no impact on global climate change, no matter what Al Gore tells you.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest6 months, 1 week ago
"It takes heat energy to move those cold air masses. A lot of heat energy"
Brilliant
It takes a lot of energy to heat the planet and it takes a lot of energy to cool the planet.
Over the last 120 years we see trends of the planet heating and cooling by .8 deg C from the norm.
Anything else?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
TonyByron6 months, 1 week ago
FTA: "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
Yep, over the "pretty long period" of about 18,000 years the earth has been warming, allowing the rise of civilization and even Al Gore.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2000Q4/211/grou...
Reply-
0%
Isoparm6 months, 1 week ago
Where in the article did it mention 18,000 years? There has been heating AND cooling since then. The number you mentioned, is meaningless.
Why do deniers insist on mentioning Al Gore? He is not a scientist, he's just a messenger. Why not look at the science of specific, NAMED scientists, and discuss the particulars of their research. Wouldn't this make for a more intelligent discussion on the subject instead of cherry-picking articles? Let's talk physics! The science doesn't care about politics, or labels.
Reply-
0%
injest6 months, 1 week ago
Why do deniers insist on mentioning Al Gore?
Because he's a fraud.
And when manmade global warming alarmist are questioned they will say something stupid like
"You did not understand the article."
"Out of curiosity, do you have a background in any of the physical sciences?"
"The Debate is over" "the consensus is"
Ya can't have consensus without continual debate. In fact consensus requires continual debate.
Reply -
0%
TonyByron6 months, 1 week ago
Iso-"Where in the article did it mention 18,000 years? There has been heating AND cooling since then. The number you mentioned, is meaningless."
The last ice age ended about 15-20 thousand years ago, it's all over the internet, haven't you heard? The earth has been warming since then.
Gore has been pronounced a liar by Britain's High Court for his "message".
"Let's talk physics! The science doesn't care about politics, or labels."
Talk physics all you want. The fact is that current climate science is highly politicized, the IPCC is maybe the worst offender. Many scientists have complained that their findings and opinions were "filtered" by non-scientists to produce a biased report.
The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Look it up, google is your friend.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Mdiar6 months, 1 week ago
I loved that episode, despite not being all that skeptical about global climate change. I consider Gore a blow-hard, it was a great episode. Did you see when Man-Bear-Pig came through the imagination doorway thing?
Reply -
0%
Isoparm6 months, 1 week ago
Do you understand the science? Do you know the difference between heat and temperature? How about fluid dynamics?
It takes an understanding of physics, chemistry, and non-linear dynamics to have a basic understanding of what is happening. Do you think you will learn this from watching South Park?
Reply-
100%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
Ohhhhhh I smarter than the average monkey,,, which doesn't say much,,, it's hot when it's hot, it's cold when it's cold,,,,, the sun heats things up,,,,, it goes in ccycles and has for about 5 billion years,,,,, man had studied Earth Climate for how long out of 5 billion years? Yeah man is an expert... they know almost nothing about weather and climate,,,,
Reply
-
-
-
0%
quackpot6 months, 1 week ago
Can we please have a bit of honesty in reporting, BoBo?
You "forget" to mention the following information from the article:
--The decade 1998 - 2007 was the warmest on record.
--The current weather is dominated by La Nina (powerful and temporary cooling of the Pacific).
--"best estimate for 2008 [is] about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century."
Reply-
0%
bobo-in-texas6 months, 1 week ago
You need to take up the honesty in reporting with that Neocon Capitalist cabal at the BBC.
The fact is is that despite the models, warnings, the "consensus", the temps haven't risen in over 10 years. Perhaps we should reexamine the issue since the predictions are signifigantly off.
Reply-
0%
quackpot6 months, 1 week ago
Hey, dude, it is an article that YOU POSTED!!!
If you don't agree with the conclusions of the article, you should just not post it. You SHOULD NOT, however, try to change what the article says.
To me, the article sounds spot on. It provides a logical explanation for the current temporary variation in global temperature.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
1998 - 2007 was the warmest on record
Well yeah but how long has the 'record' been kept? What was the temp in 15 AD or 22,369 BC?
Reply -
0%
TonyByron6 months, 1 week ago
quackpot: "Can we please have a bit of honesty in reporting, BoBo?".
"The decade 1998 - 2007 was the warmest on record." Gee whiz, how long is that record? (no proxies please).
"The current weather is dominated by La Nina (powerful and temporary cooling of the Pacific)." Would El Nino be an equally powerful and temporary warming event?
"best estimate for 2008 [is] about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century." How about if we compared it with 1961 to the present?
Everone likes cherries quackpot.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus6 months, 1 week ago
It's all been said before..... For my jury, when the "scientists" can ALL agree (you know, like gravity, speed of light, etc), then I'll be worried. At the moment, this is not the case.
I have no doubt that man is a very negative impact on the planet (in a multitude of ways), but on this one ??? See above....
Reply -
-
0%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 1 week ago
It IS information. And Al Gore did not "dream it up". He is just the messenger for a consensus of scientists from all over the planet who have made a study and come to these conclusions.
And if believing that makes me a "nazi liberal", I guess that makes you a communist conservative. Makes as much sense.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar6 months, 1 week ago
He is a messenger and he's doing a horrible job of it if he needs to convince the United States at all. His methodology to get the message out is fundamentally flawed in that he alienates those who need to be convinced, at least now he is, and he is also ignoring paths that he could take to further his goals on this issue (run for Presidency or Senate). Thus, why I do believe in global climate change... but consider Mr. Gore to be a blow-hard.
Reply
-
0%
Isoparm6 months, 1 week ago
Judging by your comment, and a surprising number of pos's. you got, there are quite a few of you who either didn't bother to read the article, or didn't understand it.
Reply
-
