I didn't even read the entire article since this is not new information at all.

Mostly the stasis is attributed to a solar cycle of known fluctuation.

However the increase to this point has triggered already feedback loops and pattern changes that imply that a tipping point has been achieved, and that even stasis is at extremes.

The expectation is that we have been given some lucky grace, but as the solar cycle swings again towards more radiative output, we will be in for more nasty weather.

Interesting you should point out the contribution the sun has to global warming or you were confirming that lack of sun energy has produced a cooling trend even as we humans continue to produce CO2 at an alarming rate?

Seems we humans have less to do with GW than has been assumed or do we contribute to cooling since CO2 production is without abatement, this probably makes too much sense in a common sort of way to be taken seriously

Anyone who quotes Erik Hoffer has probably a good grasp of our current situation. All we are is 'ducks in the wind'. I'm flapping as hard as I can against a recalcitrant nitwit mindset that cannot look past thier own desires.

'Nough said!

Carl

Not really Tippy.

You must flap harder.

I was once asked what my greatest flaw was.

"Lack of low self esteem." was my answer.

Philosophy always knocks at the door of theology, and it is wise never to believe in either or anything too much.

http://respublica.typepad.com/respublica/2009/11/global-warming-hoax.html

But not to fear. The alarmist scientists are busy cooking the data so that it appears there is warming, even when there isn't.

That keeps the all important gov't grants flowing without interruption.

One article on the investigation into the leaked emails cited the surprising amount of integrity amongst these scientists.

I'll admit to being surprised at any integrity amongst gov't-funded science.

emc_c

"One article on the investigation into the leaked emails cited the surprising amount of integrity amongst these scientists."

One.

When I write that it appears that we are given some grace, as we race to annihilation, due to a reduction in Solar radiation, your gang, sorts, and you, seize on this fact, as refutation of all.

My integrity is wrapped up with the truth.

I notice when I am lucky, since often enough I'm not.

Really what the hell makes you so certain that privately funded science is always superior to government funded science?

"Really what the hell makes you so certain that privately funded science is always superior to government funded science?"

Just this. Privately funded science usually has a profit-driven focus, which means its purpose is to produce something useful. Whereas the sole purpose of gov't funded science is to keep the funding coming - solving a problem is counterproductive to that purpose; thus no problems are solved, just new disasters are uncovered on a daily basis, all requiring "further study."

In a better country, there would be a required separation of science and gov't, just as we have separation of religion and gov't. The closest we have come to that separation is that the US census is supposed to be done purely on the basis of measured data; no statistical extrapolation allowed. Recent liberal administrations have taken issue with that and tried to use statistics to "make up for holes" in the data where the data don't represent "reality" as wished for by certain parties. Meaning mainly "undercounting" certain populations felt to be important to the more liberal party.

Once you let that genie out of the lamp, the census results will totally be based on the desires of the party in charge at the time. And similarly today, the results of gov't-funded science can be counted for one thing and one thing only, furthering more and bigger gov't science, and bigger gov't, in general.

emc_c

Yes. And both private and public funded 'science' are suspect for the same reasons. Skewed results to the agrandisement of the funding source of the study.

It's like one wag said here; "85% of all statistics are made up"

I'm not up to speed on the issues of global warming, and who is for, and who is against, but I would like to raise a point. If the temperature is rising then that temperature must be doing work, melting ice caps, warming the oceans, etc, so a period when the temp does not rise, could be said to be due to the state of equilibrium changing? Now the thing about that, that concerns me is, when the cooler regions of the earth are raised in temp, will that effect precipitation? will precipitation rely on saturation, resulting in heavy rain falls? particularly in the northern regions. Will we see more dry weather in the south and more bush fire that we are having in Australia? Just thinking aloud.

Regards JD.

Far as I understand it the temperature has risen in direct correlation to population increases and common actions associated with common things they do.

The reports are that some things happening imply that Solar energy input, while somewhat constant, within cycles does diminish, and then increase to either the prior level, or a greater level.

Reports are that at this time there is some diminution in Solar input, while the overall climate has dramatically changed already reaching higher temps that are maintaining, plus causing some events expected, but not expected so soon, and other events, not fully expected, or understood.

Hence Climate Change is a more proper name for the events, than Global Warming.

Still it is known that the place has gotten warmer. It is also expected by many scientists and astronomers, that increased Solar output will occur, renewing warming.

Warming is of itself of no particular hardship unusual, and some places are hotter than others.

Nations and territories in danger of being flooded are of course not to happy about becoming part of the ocean floor, and therefore are not in favor of warming.

Possibly if the population was smaller warming causing sea level rise, would be not much of a particular disaster.

However since humans live on land, less land to live on coupled with nearly maximum population at imperfect efficiencies land loss will cause wars at the very least.

The poisoning of the planet due to common actions is just as significant, if not more than climate change. Take away all the worry or concern about whether or not it is getting hotter in general, and the ice caps are melting, and you are still faced with massive poisoning by even fairly well regulated industries.

The sea of plastics and the Mercury in the fish threaten to make anything taken from the commons to eat to be insured to be nearly or completely toxic.

I see often enough in these sorts of discussions about Climate Change, and Global Warming, and Population that the only reason people are starving is that Distribution of the bounty possible to harvest, is lacking.

I am not impressed by this argument for if that is the only problem, how come fixing that is not the primary goal?

The title of the thread is Global Warming Takes a Powder, as if it is setback, defeated, over.

The truth is that it is paused at bad, and that we are in a very dangerous period of Climate Changed, and Environmental degradation we can with certainty expect to put severe stresses on us for the foreseeable future, not to mention the unforeseeable.

Roger Pink - calling Roger Pink - come in please Roger Pink....................aaaagh

I'm confused, I thought you were saying that the Earth was warming but it was part of a natural warming cycle. What are you guys believing now? Natural warming or is the Earth cooling?

I have an idea, why don't you make a prediction of what you believe will happen in the future. I'll even go first.

I believe there will be less summer arctic ice. I believe there will be a net loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. I believe the oceans will rise another inch. All by 2015.

Please, now you go. Lets see you say something that you can be held accountable for in the future.

That's not what I said.

No time to restate now.

Thanks for dropping in Roger. Apparently my take on where we are wasn't quite good enough.

To restate where I am is simply that Climate Change was predicted back in the 70s and earlier. Overpopulation was identified as a cause. Evidence confirms most predictions.

Some grace due to a Solar cycle is currently indicated, however much damage has been done and the heating trend is likely to continue due to melts already happened.

Further planet poisoning continues. The mercury levels in fish are frightening.