If global warming has stopped, why was 2007 warmer than 1999?

It would be nice if it that were true, that Global Warming has stopped. Unfortunately, I haven't heard anywhere that it will be possible to stop it, but rather, collectively, there is still maybe time to help curb it enough that we and more importantly, the future of the human species, will be able to deal with it.

BTW - please correct me if I'm wrong Dana, but I believe La Nina usually precedes El Nino, and it's the latter that usually gives us the extreme climate conditions as with hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, drought, heat waves, etc.

The truth is, whether all of us are willing to believe it or not, we have upset the balance of things. Even though the global mean temperature fluctuates throughout time, for thousands of years throughout the current interglacial period, and there have been many periods of warm and cold... the fact is, we now exist in a time when it will only continue to warm because it is already so warm, coupled with the unprecedented levels of the important GHGs; CO2 and Methane, and the real bad news is, we can only worry that we'll only be continually adding to those levels, and even if we found ways to limit our pollution** of these gasses, we've already crossed the threshold that will continue to introduce these extra concentrations of gasses into our atmosphere due to melting ice (enormous terra-forming amounts of CO2 and Methane deposits exist in and under ice which haven't been introduced to our environment for millions of years).

Yes, CO2 has always been with us, it is essential to life, but we're talking about the concentration levels becoming higher now than they have been naturally, going back possibly since the last great extinction.

This is the reason why scientists are worried. Enough of them realize now that this by no means a small matter, this has become a life altering problem that we'll increasingly be feeling the effects from for an unimaginable number of generations to come (that's the really scary part, we know it is only going to get worse, but how long and how much worse will it actually get?). But as with anything, like whether or not there was a moon landing or not, there is always going to be a skeptic out there, no matter the issue.

So to properly answer you question Dana...

A) Global Warming hasn't stopped, and sadly it won't, not in our lifetime for sure, it's already too late but we can still likely slow it down enough to make adapting to the resulting changes more achievable, this is why doing more and doing it sooner is so important, otherwise it will only be more difficult and costly as time goes on.

B) The reason it appears to be getting warmer with each decade, simply, is because it is, I don't know how else to say it... I could provide you with a thousand sources but what is the point, you and most people know there is an incredible amount of evidence for this and it is only mounting with each passing year, in fact, there probably hasn't existed this much research and evidence for any one matter than ever before in history and no credible scientists actually dispute the fact that it is getting warmer, and WILL continue to get warmer.

The only credible Global Warming critics/scientists out there, are only arguing about the *nature* of the warming (and not any longer whether or not it is warming), trying to find excuses why we don't necessarily have to pin it on Anthropogenic causes, they are in business of making the argument that climate change is normal and naturally occurring as is what triggers them... that's it!

We have entered a new era. Where the argument no longer is… "Is Global Warming Real?" That time has clearly ended in the Science community the world over.

The argument now ONLY is... "Is the present Global Warming triggered, influenced and accelerated by our activities and can we therefore slow it down or possibly even reverse it?... or is the latter impossible because humans can't influence the earth's climate system no matter what we do, no matter how populated and demanding of earth's resources we become and no matter how long we do it??" That's the argument, and very few, although increasingly popular, scientists are trying to argue the point that man is not a factor.

As for the majority of the skeptics out there, AGW as well as just GW out there... The simple reason you won't agree is because you are in denial, and skeptics by nature, are not likely to concede anything too easily even if the truth slaps them in the face.

What annoys the rest of us about you is that you could be using all your passion and energy (and quite often, incredibly, your intellect) doing something POSITIVE towards an utmost important issue, rather than go out of your way, to get in the way... YOU'RE NOT HELPING ANYONE! Not yourself, not your neighbor, not your children and certainly, not, any of their children's children. So please, while there is still some time (and what we do with time now instead of later, literally makes a world of difference), open your eyes and try discovering the real truth for yourselves, not by always seeking it from some equally biased politicians or on some website quietly funded by ExxonMobil, and not from political figures at all, but rather some real, and *respected* sources like. American Scientific, Science, Discover, NGC, and so on and perhaps even, the actual scientists and groups that are studying this epidemic.

Yes, we hear and do understand you're concern, you don't want your 'way of life' threatened, and you feel that's what's happening, if oil is taken away, etc. But hopefully soon you will realize, we can get around our dependency of oil, we can, we will, we have to anyway but more importantly, we are already beginning to make this change.

The possibilities already exist, the infrastructure and cooperation from everyone in the world is still what we have to deal with and we will just have to work on improving it all as time goes on. This is much better than trying to deal with it all at once later. So know, it is possible to get off fossil fuels and the methods WILL IMPROVE as the *demand* for them increase.

**Note - for you smarty pants out there who don't think CO2 can be considered a pollutant... well you have once again been misinformed... anytime when you introduce something to the environment that is unwanted or has an undesirable effect on the environment, it is pollution, anything can be pollution if it fits that simple criteria, even light and noise, think about it).

PS - Dana (personal message to you)...

Are you going to put this to vote? Your questions are usually much too important to go to waste with the flawed 'choose best answer' option since everyone seems to phish for points and just pick the first one they see usually.

Although mine may not be the best on here, I at least feel it is a good one and the message I'm trying to send 'based on your question', is important. Hopefully that counts for something.

* * * Response to your comment Dana...

Thanks...

BTW - Mastermind... nobody is a hypocrite because they use energy. Kind of difficult discussing this on Yahoo answers without power don't you think? What Dana and others like him here are helping to accomplish is getting the ball rolling on changing what the 'source' of our energy 'will be'. To do that, he needs his computer! I'm quite sure he's the type of person who would *choose* clean renewable resources over polluting non-renewable resources for providing power to his home if given the choice. And that time will come with or without your help.

The problem remains today, the rich monopoly on oil and other fossil fuels in the world is still holding us hostage.

You're obviously the sort of person that resorts to stupid tactics like that when you don't have solid points you can make to explain why Global Warming isn't real. For example, saying it isn't real because Al Gore flys on jets is quite ignorant... and judging from that response you left, I'm willing to bet you've raised that very point before, probably a hundred times even... what does that make you... An Inhoffestormtrooper?! BTW - Al Gore needs to fly jets so he can visit as many cities as possible, everywhere he goes, he gets very important things accomplished. To offset his carbon foot print, Al Gore also invests heavily in things which help the environment, i.e. absorb or reduce CO2, meaning, he is doing more to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere than he is to adding to it - so there.

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

I feel your pain.

The temperature bounces around, and bad arguements abound.

But as and AGW skeptic I just encourage to look at the blue line in metoffice chart. It looks like we've arrive at a local maxima. I'd bet we're in for 20-30 years of cooling as per the 1940 or 1900 cooling trends.

If the chart is expanded to the left we would see the cooling of the Little Ice Age (1600) further down ~300 BC would be the Roman Era warming.

In gelogic time Global Temperatures do not track CO2 levels & Life trives on Earh for hundreds of millions of years at levels ranging from 1000 to 3000ppm.

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the environment. My sense is just that the real economic nightmare of rising energy cost is being ignored at the expense of the phatom menace of AGW.

Global warming never stopped. In fact, 2007 was shockingly hot (globally) given that it was a year that featured a strong La Nina cooling influence.

Sigh.

Focusing on any one or two years is bad science with regard to global warming. The weather in any one or two years can do anything, and the data has no relevance to global warming.

This is global warming data. Note how individual years are quite variable. The proper parameter to use is the 5 year rolling average, the red line.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

This question reflects confusion between "weather" and "climate". Asking why the 5 year rolling average is higher in 2007 than it was in 1999 (and by almost 0.2 degrees, which is, historically, an extremely rapid warming) would be scientifically valid.

I hate to say this but I don't know if global warming will ever get better.

2007 was warmer? Where? Not where I live. Cold summer, cold winter.

Why is it that GW or AGW affects the entire globe, but not the oceans or not where I live?

BTW - Blizzard conditions in MN April 10th through April 11th. But don't worry about me, I still made it to work.

Global warming has NOT stopped even thought its call glodal WARMING its mostly CLIMATE CHANGE the way that things are happening we can speed the rate of an ice age first it will be hot then after that cold.... and lots of things like EXTREME wheather is caused by that cause it is not really natural

As long as we are hand picking our statistics, what happens if 2008 isn't as warm as 1998? or even 1999?

What would you say then?

I think no matter how you look at things, statistics can be made to say whatever you wish them to say, especially when you are hand picking them.

Why is global warming defined by the temp of the atmosphere when the oceans hold thousands of times as much heat?

Let's answer your question with a question.

Why is it when someone who knows nothing about science quotes a year of cooling and you are all over them about not using one year as proof of anything, yet you come along and do the same thing. I guess if you are an alarmist, everything is reasonable, and anything that disagrees with you is bad science, right?

You, and you alone are the reason why some of the people on here are skeptics. They almost believe that the AGW believers have it right, then you come along with bad science and make the whole thing look like a sham.

I really wish the bad science on both sides of the argument would go away, but I guess that is just wishful thinking.