Global warming ended in 1997

poppy · #1 01/29/12, 07:09 PM

A newly released study shows the rising trend in world temps ended in 1997 and are now declining. In fact, they predict a cooling trend for the next 50 years. The reason? The sun's energy output goes through cycles and it is in a low cycle. When temps were rising, it was putting out more energy. Why did so many fall for the man made global warming hoopla and disregard the sun's influence on our temps when it is plainly obvious?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

Ed Norman · #2 01/29/12, 07:58 PM

I remember many threads on here with several members saying global warming is settled science. Those of us who disagreed were laughed at.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/glo...ict-4-9c-fall/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...may_longrange/

plowjockey · #3 01/29/12, 08:04 PM

Yea, but now we have the problem, of an upcoming mini ice age.

We'll need millions of dollars of research and Government regulation for that, too.

poppy · #4 01/29/12, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowjockey

Yea, but now we have the problem, of an upcoming mini ice age.

We'll need millions of dollars of research and Government regulation for that, too.

Nah, just stop the green energy programs, make those on solar energy pay their fair share for not helping to warm the planet, and use those savings to to fund a "cash for gas savers" program to encourage people to buy big trucks and SUV's.

EDDIE BUCK · #5 01/29/12, 08:34 PM

And Drill Baby,Drill

arabian knight · #6 01/29/12, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDDIE BUCK

And Drill Baby,Drill

That sure is a good idea. We need to get the oil that is ours. And use that oil here. It is a great thing to do.
But I sure would like to be warmer then colder.
Warm is good cold is bad.

JuliaAnn · #7 01/29/12, 09:44 PM

Wonder how AlGore and his cronies are going to spin this so they can maintain their massive fraud-based income?

Bearfootfarm · #8 01/29/12, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Nah, just stop the green energy programs

BO has figured out how to do that....just give them a billion dollars and they go bankrupt

naturelover · #9 01/30/12, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

A newly released study shows the rising trend in world temps ended in 1997 and are now declining. In fact, they predict a cooling trend for the next 50 years.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

That's hilarious!!

If this is what they're calling a cooling trend I'd hate to experience whatever they'd say is a warming trend. Talk about cooked gooses!

.

Tricky Grama · #10 01/30/12, 06:40 AM

You gotta be kidding...you KNOW the cooling trend is MAN-made! Stop all drilling & keep up the elec. car production!

**Tiempo** · #11 01/30/12, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

A newly released study shows the rising trend in world temps ended in 1997 and are now declining. In fact, they predict a cooling trend for the next 50 years. The reason? The sun's energy output goes through cycles and it is in a low cycle. When temps were rising, it was putting out more energy. Why did so many fall for the man made global warming hoopla and disregard the sun's influence on our temps when it is plainly obvious?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

Did you read the entire article?

poppy · #12 01/30/12, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturelover

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

That's hilarious!!

If this is what they're calling a cooling trend I'd hate to experience whatever they'd say is a warming trend. Talk about cooked gooses!

.

Did you read it?

poppy · #13 01/30/12, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiempo

Did you read the entire article?

Yep. The data shows what the title says. It also says some scientists put to much emphasis on CO2, which makes their climate models false and is the reason the global warming they forecast ended in 1997. The article does not state exactly how cool it will get. The estimates vary from slight cooling clear down to the Maunder Minimum. Seems like a balanced article because they tell both sides instead of having someone like Algore ranting on a stage.

**Tiempo** · #14 01/30/12, 08:44 AM

It says that the publishers of the data believe that while the solar energy slump could be as deep as the 'maunder minimum' ....

Quote:

...Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases..

It goes on to cite others who have differing opinions, but I think it's useful in the context of the thread to point out what the actual authors of the study said.

You stated in your OP that the authors of the study predicted a cooling trend for the next 50 years, but according to the article, they didn't...Henrik Svensmark did.

arabian knight · #15 01/30/12, 09:13 AM

Yes it ended that long ago.
And a cooling trend has been happening since. And besides man is not causing any of this in the first place. It is after all a natural cycle of what the earth has been going through for the last 4.5 Billion years. It warms up, it cools off, it warms up and it cools off again.and so on. And many of the planets are warming up at present. Man is certainly not doing that. But the tree huggers will never listen to true science, only what somebody has INPUT data into a computer two support their agenda.
Which if done correctly don't give them their intended data for their supported agenda so they PUT IN FALSE data to make the computer LOOK like it supports what they believe. LOL

greg273 · #16 01/30/12, 04:41 PM

From the article...

Quote:

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.

Read the highlighted part REAL slow, so as to understand what they are saying.

SteveD(TX) · #17 01/30/12, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg273

From the article...

Read the highlighted part REAL slow, so as to understand what they are saying.

You should also read this REAL slow, so as to understand what the article is all about:

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help

poppy · #18 01/30/12, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg273

From the article...

Read the highlighted part REAL slow, so as to understand what they are saying.

Did you also read the part w the Met Office predicted global warming would come roaring back in 2007? Their climate models are flawed because they rely to much on the effect of CO2 according to many scientists.

greg273 · #19 01/30/12, 08:26 PM

Ok, I'l highlight the findings of the MET office more fully, not the opinions of commentators, which is skillfully tied together with the actual release of data.

Quote:

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

The world is not like it was in the 1600's, the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is greater than it was back then.