Slashdot Mirror
Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
vinces99 writes with news about a study that may account for a slowdown in air temperature rises. Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface. More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published in Science. Subsurface ocean warming explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth's surface. "Every week there's a new explanation of the hiatus," said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. "Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause." What they found is that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.
Sweet, I can't wait for next week's alternate explanation!
Go ahead "consensus" troll mods - do your worst to bury every skeptic questioning sketchy science on this story. Then go look in the mirror and call yourself a rational scientist.
Folks here have been saying that the "hiatus" is a denier hoax. But now it's real, AND we understand it!
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
It's Dark Matter.
If anything's missing, the answer always is Dark Matter.
Can't find your car keys . . . ? Dark Matter.
Short on your mortgage this month . . . ? Tell the bank, "Dark Matter."
The Earth is not as hot as we'd like it to be . . . ? Dark Matter.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
stays pretty dang cold till the last ice cube melts.
Hiatus presumes reoccurrence. Never use past days to predict future occurrences.
An explanation why this article is nonsense:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Do enlighten us - please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
Strangely, all the examples I can find just support the consensus view.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Not only does this explain a lot of the recent data, but it also directs attention to an ignored part of climatology: the vulcanism under the oceans and the warm currents they cause at very deep levels.
Good going, guys and guyettes!
Debunk this latest what? Latest gloss over to cover up horrible weather models. I seriously wish my full time job was debunking Anthropomorphic global climate change piggybackers
Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.
Realclimate.Org....... The governmental agencies are crooked enough. Do you really need a full throttle biased website? "Hey guys wattsup just said climate change is fake!"
It clearly shows a relationship between atmospheric temperature, energy stored in the ocean, and salinity. Whether you agree or disagree with the interpretation of the data in terms of global warming, at least they have provided us with a nice visual demonstrating the relationship between the ocean and the atmosphere.
dude, there is so much money in AGW that there's no way to stop the gravy train. there's no way you can stop the gravy train.
I nether believe in global warming nor do I deny that it could be happening. I am simply interested in the science put forward and am open to adjusting my hypothesis based on the observed and tested results.
With that out of the way, the fact that some scientists are saying that there is no actual "Hiatus" and producing numbers to back up there claims while others are examining the temperature data and looking for new systems and processes that explain the changes they are seeing worries me. It tells me that some in the scientific community have abandon the scientific method and are attempting to make the data fit the hypothesis they have. Don't get me wrong, this happens far more often in science than most believe. However, in such a hot political topic one must be vigilant and make sure that the politics does not overshadow the truth we learn through science.
Ether way you look at it, the discovery of a new process within the chaotic system of the atmosphere simply adds more data to the mix and allows us to better understand the processes.
Until the authors of this piece got ahold of the swift bouy data, it didn't show such a warming signal at depth. They massaged and doctored and tortured the data until it did show such a signal, much like climate fraudster Michael Mann's oft discredited hockey stick, Briffa's discredited Yamal tree ring data that did not exclude outliers and had 90% of all climate signal in it credited to a single tree, ignoring hundreds of others in the same area that showed no signal, and Ben Santer's broken antarctic weather stations that he used to allege warming in Antarctica with a little help from illegitimate use of homogenization effects improperly applied.
How dare you state inconvenient truths?
Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.
OK, I am down on climate models, because they have poor accuracy, but come on, they don't ignore the oceans in their models. Check it out on Wikipedia at least before writing something.
You might be able to say that their handling of the oceans is incorrect, and if you have a good reason, such a post would be interesting, but scientists definitely aren't ignoring the oceans in their models, I don't even know why you would think that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.
That's not to say that climate models are bad science, they are good science investigating the nature of the earth; but people who put too much faith in them without evidence were performing bad science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Funny you call them denialists for being.... right! What do you call Al Gore? Good intentioned?
At least they have provided us with a nice visual demonstrating the relationship between the ocean and the atmosphere.
Why is it nice to be misled?
In reality the atmosphere affects the temperature of a few inches of water on top of the ocean.
Far vaster of an impact is solar energy input.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sweet, I can't wait for next week's alternate explanation!
Go ahead "consensus" troll mods - do your worst to bury every skeptic questioning sketchy science on this story. Then go look in the mirror and call yourself a rational scientist.
Science is about skepticism. Even climatologists that support the theory of man influenced climate change are constantly questioning the data, and looking at alternate conjectures. The very article referenced explicitly states that many of the theories that were presented to explain why global surface temperatures in the last decade did not track the apparent heat load global warming induced were inadequate, and the subject of further inquiry like the research cited. That's how Science works. But Science doesn't discover all the facts instantly and doesn't advance in convenient textbook chapters. It isn't skepticism that tries to characterize Science as just a bunch of random guesses, one after the other. That's just ignorance of Science. Science works by incremental and sometimes studdering progress forward. There are lots of things we know with certainty. We know carbon dioxide traps heat in Earth's lower atmosphere. We know human activities have dramatically increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The net result is an increased amount of heat absorbed by the Earth. What precisely happens to that heat in all of the complex thermal systems on Earth is still not well understood. But that doesn't mean the core principles are just random guesses. We're still discovering how 19th century chemistry works, but no one thinks that new chemistry discoveries mean chemistry is left-wing conspiracy.
The history of scientific progress looks no different for any other subject than it looks for 21st century climatology. Our understanding of gravity, of the germ theory of infectious disease, of quantum mechanics all followed similar discovery and learning curves. The only difference is that general relativity and Schroedinger's equation aren't subjects politicians can effectively argue about.
I think a lot of people, even some actual scientists, do not understand the role of skepticism in Science. There's a difference between scientific skepticism and peanut gallery skepticism. Scientific skepticism is healthy. When a scientist is skeptical of prevailing theories and conducts intellectually honest research aimed at probing that skepticism, that's always valuable. Science isn't a poll: if a scientific theory is correct, it will survive skeptical research. If its wrong, it will eventually be contradicted by the evidence. But when someone with no understanding of the facts or the research misinterprets the natural skepticism that is at the heart of scientific discovery by filtering it through their own "common sense" then they don't understand why science is successful overall, and really ought to shut up about it.
why would I get a govt desk job at EPA when I can make a fortune in clean technology, driven by the urgency of climate change? real urgency or artificial urgency, the money's still green.
The real denialists are, and always have been, the ones who think science is never to be questioned.
You are more the zealot than anyone who ever came out of Bob Roberts U.
It will be nice a decade or two hence when it is undeniable just how far you have allowed yourself to be duped (well actually it is the case now, but even you will admit it in 20 years).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What we do know is that we don't know exactly how the whole system works. The whole system being the planetary carboin cycle on which we depend for our one and only nice comfortable life sustaining climate.
Given that we don't know how it all works and we depend on it are we really happy shitting in our own bathtub by releasing all sorts of long term stored carbon? Wouldn't it be better to slow down to a more natural rate and study the thing before we continued doing what might be self destructive.
in order?
The bioluminescent denizens of the deep would like you to step down so as have a chat with you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
As if global warming isn't scary enough.
Regardless of the role of skepticism, everybody seems to be overlooking one key point:
If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked. Well, maybe not completely. Some more than others. But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.
. They don't understand the basis of scientific inquiry nor the scientific method, and think that science is decided by unshakeable opinion and shouting people down.
Well, in politics that worked for Obama and the Democrats. Winning at all costs is acceptable to some people.
I have no killfile because I believe in hearing what other people think.
Like all denialists you cover your ears and go LA LA LA when confronted with heresy to your chosen brands of religion.
It's sad really, that an otherwise intelligent individual can let himself go in a kind of self-imposed Alzheimer's.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions,
So you want to keep performing scientific research, but not use that research to inform our actions? That's... genius.
often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
Oh yeah, that's a real problem with a lot of political systems; too many scientists making policy and not enough career politicians and business lobbyists. Haw haw haw.
Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.
You mustn't of been listening very hard then, because the concern is that this "long standing natural occurrence" is being unnaturally accelerated and during other times when it "previously naturally occurred" at accelerated rates it resulted in mass extinction and damage to biodiversity.
Ok.
This article isn't saying the heat is "disappearing". The heat is indeed being trapped and transferred to ocean temperatures. Ocean currents drive climate. Not sure how you think this "debunks" AGW.
haha just like my stovetop burner only affects the temperature of a few millimeters of water on the bottom of the pot
That is far more an example of the effect the sun has on the water than the atmosphere.
If you go into a shallow lake is it the same as ambient air temperature...
Put a few miles of water above your pot and see how far it gets when you turn on the heat below..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.
Which assumptions?
All climate models assume a lag between a cause and the observed results.
This just means the lag might be 30+ years.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The missing news story here..
"Assumptions about the Ocean heat convection currents were wrong, they do not just shut down when temperatures rise a little"
I mean who would've thought that a large body of water would still try and maintain a thermodynamic balance..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
This isn't really new. It's been well established that ocean and atmosphere warm at different rates, have their own heat exchange dynamics, and in particular that ocean heat content has been rising continuously while surface temperatures have plateaued.
See, for example: http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
And a quote from this 8 month old article http://www.nature.com/news/cli...
"NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming"
It's well known that the heat storage of the oceans is massively greater than the heat storage of the atmosphere. Hence surface temperatures will sooner or later reflect the ongoing increase in heat content of the earth-ocean system.
It's great to have new studies that confirm this - but why tout it as somehow "new"?
The "hiatus" isn't what people think - " this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface"
Note that the average temp is still rising even if more slowly than expected. But the entire planet doesn't warm or cool all at once.
During that "hiatus" the loss of ice cover, especially in the Arctic has been tremendous and that's noteworthy for 2 reasons.
The first is that the number of temperature monitoring stations in the Arctic is very poor. The other is that it takes a LOT of heat to melt ice - turning it to water at zero deg requires as much as raising room temp water to the boiling point.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
No, they want the science to be settled more-thoroughly before we re-model our entire society in response to it. Do you have any idea how many trillions we've wasted economically on the global warming thing? If they couldn't predict and can't explain the hiatus, that's just another sign that science and policymakers are being way too confident about the scientific underpinning for wasting trillions.
The real real truth goes something like this:
1) Scientists discover a possible global warming problem, but data isn't perfectly clear. However, there's a 5% chance it could fuck up all of human society in a few hundred years.
2) Scientists decide that nobody will take it seriously enough to take action, and decide that action is necessary, so they begin collectively fibbing about how solid the evidence is and how near and dramatic the impact is. They need to convince the sheeples to convince the government to do "the right thing". If there's any internal debate in the science community, it's squashed in the name of "don't let the sheeple see us disagreeing about the details! then they won't fix it!".
But the bottom line is: people aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are, and they don't need the science community usurping the decision-making power by internalizing the debate and lying to everyone.
Just remember that the purpose of every assumption is to shrink error bars, usually by an unknown amount. A good scientist is honest about this, unfortunately most scientists try to be honest but are incompetent when it comes to statistics and data analysis in general so they don't even realize their overconfidence. This is not in any way limited to climate science.
Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see - the climate models are missing something. This of course isn't a surprise; they're missing lots of things, many of which are called out in the study (ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, unexpected stratospheric aerosol variation or solar variation, etc). There's a lot of details we can't predict, but climate models are still useful even when we know they're incomplete, just like every other kind of model.
Still, I appreciate the link, even if (as you say) it doesn't invalidate any "sketchy science".
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
A lot of people dont understand the difference between healthy scepticism and outright denial.
Sceptics analyse the evidence behind conclusions and express their concerns. When concerns are valid, the conclusions are re-examined and if need be, changes are made, experiments are re-run with these new factors in mind.
A person in denial looks for evidence to support their point of view. They dont examine the evidence, they only look for skerricks and soundbites that support their ideas, they dont add to the scientific process at all. The problem is that denial loves to hide in and pretend that it's proper scepticism because this gives denial legitimacy. The worse part is, they will attempt to take evidence out of context to support their ideas.
Scepticism is an important part of verification in science, in science you're not meant to believe anything. However denial means believing in your idea regardless of any and all the evidence arrayed against it. Pretty much the antithesis of scientific scepticism.
Put simply (TL;DR)
Scepticism says: the climate change model is incorrect, we need to change the model.
Denial says: the climate change model is incorrect, therefore climate change is wrong LA LA LA LA LA I cant hear you.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Really? That's interesting. There have been five mass extinctions in Earth's history. Which of these "mass extinctions" are you referring to? How was it in any way similar to, or related to, climate models for the next few centuries?
If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked.
No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless.
I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper. To me it looks like they're simply pointing out a deep-ocean cycle that could soak up heat from the surface - not unlike the well-known ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict. Unless you think that "incomplete" means "fundamentally assumes that no other factors can exist"?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
That makes them 100 times better than the people with purportedly have those qualifications.
Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see
Well, if everyone could see it, it wouldn't be a study lol. There must be something novel there at least.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Your analogy of comparing science to religion doesn't fit as you would realise if you thought about it instead of just regurgitating Ian Plimer's stupid recycled anti-creationist rant that he warmed up to re-use against climate scientists.
While there are indeed "five" known major mass extinctions, those aren't the only ones. There would be at least a dozen others.
And there are several of them(including some of the Big Five) where global warming is a possible explanation.. Paleocene-Eocene, Triassic-Jurassic and possibly Permian–Triassic .
The Clathrate gun hypothesis, is one explanation for them, flood basalts are another. But if you can offer your own thoughts, go ahead.
I doubt the models are expressly identical though, since modern ones have to account for human behavior, and while the Silurians are fun to watch on the Beeb, they aren't likely to be real.
Nor are Time Lords.
It was as if a million points of karma suddenly cried out in terror... and were suddenly silenced.
It seems so right when you explain it.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
>Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate
yeah, let's leave the important decissions to lawyers and economists, and not to scientists and engineers. Now THAT would lead to a great society !
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
google global warming hiatus ipcc
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
http://washington.cbslocal.com...
http://www.weather.com/news/sc...
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
Well, if everyone could see it, it wouldn't be a study lol
The novel part is they present data to confirm it, and their analysis is peer-reviewed - that's the difference between a real study and something that "everyone can see".
What I was actually referring to was the models being incomplete, which isn't news to anyone. Fyfe et al 2013 just demonstrate this, and suggest some of the likely missing factors. TFA goes further, and gives data on a new factor (the deep-ocean current).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
so we should stop putting a massive amount of CO2 (from 200ppm to 400ppm in 200 years...) into the atmosphere, until we have a clear understanding of the effects.
there are thousands & thousands of scientists who say we are contributing to global warming, and about two who say we aren't. TV news likes to show both sides, so on TV it looks like a 50/50 split. Just keep burying your head in the sand.
What a great explanation! I try to explain what science is sometimes, albeit not so eloquently; I'm not sure elegance would help with some people anyways.
I have a relative that was shocked when I mentioned scientific research about the parting the Red Sea in the bible. I tried to boil it down to "science is about what, and religion is about why". Not sure it helped. Maybe I'll try your spiel.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
people need to watch this on TED for the genersl idea of what's involved:-http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change
Whether or not it's getting warmer is a fact, not a debate.
Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming.
You're certainly right that they can debate as much as they want as to the cause.
Since the dawn of modern post-industrial science, scientists have been screaming for political action while larged monied interests decried their research. Whether they're right or wrong, the motives of those attempting to maintain the status quo are ridiculously complex. Industry attempted to mislead the public and use Congress to determine whether it was safe to infuse every square inch of our environment with particulate lead, our rain with sulfuric and nitric acid, our atmosphere with CFCs, our water with poisons. Personally, when a large amount of scientists start screaming about there being serious consequences to something going on, I'd listen to them.
Hah! Good reply. But I understand where the OP is coming from. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way humans work. Nobody paid much attention to the previous 20-30 years of work on climate. It wasn't until things passed a certain point, then everybody started jumping on the bandwagon. Politicians follow people. And then they swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Certainly. In the same way that if the wheel on your car wobbles at 60mph, you don't figure out what's wrong, you throw away the whole fucking car.
"I'm a Rational Scientist"
"I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!"
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
This guy believes the Greenhouse Effect is bunk, and disproven.
You may be curious now, but be prepared to feel a little nauseous when he begins answering you.
No one really knows how it all works.
I'm quite certain the problem will have killed us long before we can possibly accurately model all the places trapped thermal energy have to hide on this planet.
Why is this marked insightful? The whole "realcliate.org is biased!" thing is no more "insightful" than shouting about how snopes.org is biased because it claims that obama isn't a kenyan homo-muslim atheist.
Unless someone can actually point out claims on there that aren't in the scientific literature, theres nothing "+1 Insightful" about it.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper.
If this paper is correct, then the effect (according to the authors) overwhelms ENSO, among other things. As it is already acknowledged that ENSO is a very major factor, the models have tried to account for it or at least incorporate its effects in some way. That would all have to be re-figured. And that's no small thing.
If ENSO cannot be predicted to any great degree (it cannot), yet it has a major effect on climate models, and now another effect is found that is claimed to have a far greater effect than ENSO, what then?
Obviously the models would be revised to use the new information. That's all great. If so, then maybe they could finally actually start predicting something... which would finally make them useful. So far, they've had almost no practical predictive value. Not none, maybe... so I retract the statement that they're "useless". They may not be useless. They're just nearly useless.
Shrinking vertically is the real fear; the thermohaline circulation is highly sensitive to salinity (now, if only I knew what the word haline meant, and what happens when ice melts in seawater...), and the larger scale thermohaline circulation could very realistically shut down, or shrink to vertical levels making it near-useless for global heat distribution, if given proper breakdown of thermal gradients and salinity barriers; with it the most important currents (to a lot of places that are today habitable) would be fundamentally altered.
It's generally thought that if the cycle does slow down enough, or shut down completely, the Ocean will lose its ability to sequester any more heat, and the result will be quite catastrophic to the current climate (in that places that were previously arable, will not be), and there's plenty of evidence that this has not only happened before, but triggered extinction events.
Currents in general are quite safe, and nobody's really worried about the ocean suddenly becoming stagnant.
You're not in much of a position to be presuming to know what I think.
Every single one of them.
Sometimes the change accelerant is the Earth's sudden inability to sequester any more oxygen.
Sometimes it's a huge fucking comet hitting the planet.
Sometimes it's an ignorant species puking several-hundred-million-year-old sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the form of a gas that is opaque to infrared radiation.
In the end though, climate change got em all, and always because some accelerant made it happen too fast for most life to adapt to.
Any climate model made only a few years ago is going to have an easy time being accurate. It took over a decade for the other climate models to be really obviously wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
>Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate yeah, let's leave the important decissions to lawyers and economists, and not to scientists and engineers. Now THAT would lead to a great society !
Lawyers and economists are very good in their respective fields, it would be foolish to believe that scientists and engineers would be better at matters of law or economy.
Give me an example of a "biased" opinion on that site. Just one. But to be sure we are speaking clearly here, lets lay down some ground rules.
1) By "biased" I assume you mean "claim not from the scientific literature
2) And is contradicted by a claim from the scientific literature.
Keep in mind here that *all* the staff of realclimate (that I'm aware of) are working climate scientists with unchallenged scientific reputations in the actual field (ie not "cranky undergrad geologist" or "television weatherman") , so if your going to make big claims about this site, be sure to use big evidence!
Why does hanson's reputation need to be protected. The man hasn't done anything wrong! Having lots of spiral-eyed pseudoscience bloggers yelling at you isn't a personality fault dude!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Yes he is. As is all of us that have read your poorly reasoned posts.
Or maybe you are indicating that what you write should be ignored as you are simply trying to troll?
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Quote for extra lulz:
Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. [principia-scientific.org] (Just one example of said discrediting.)
Topping on the fucking cake:
Don't try to debate me on the science, guy. I've got you beat. I can keep shooting you down all day.
Just for the record, you are my favorite imbecile.
No, what religions do is torture and murder heretics...
And prevent their papers from being published in scientific journals.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The people using the word "denialists" are not scientists. That's the point, once you go there you have stopped using science and have firmly planted both feet into the realm of "religion". Even if you started with Science...
I, like all rational people, respect science and scientists when they remain dedicated to the pursuit of truth, even to the point they can admit a theory was incorrect.
But many of your alarmists have not watched Frozen enough to get the message. Let It Go.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I haven't debating that fact. Why do you bring it up? What is the relevance of that to policy?
Scientists are qualified to tell us whether it is getting warmer. They are not qualified to tell us whether the consequences are "serious" or how we as a society should respond, something that involved not just narrow scientific conclusions, but economic, social, legal, moral, and political choices.
Scientists have also built atomic bombs, created poison gas and biological weapons, experimented on prisoners in concentration camps, justified racism, faked results to enrich themselves, and done lots of other horrible things. Uncritically listening to scientists is a bad idea, and I'm saying that as a scientist myself.
I.e., in no way analogous to global warming models. Good, thanks for admitting that.
Good. I hope we'll go on doing it, melt the polar ice caps, and restore the usual stable climate on this planet again, instead of going through the rapid and destructive climate cycles we have been experiencing for the past seven million years.
Your point?
;)
I don't recall those scientists screaming from the top of their lungs that if we didn't build bombs, experiment on prisoners, be racist nazi shitbags, or any other horrible things, then we were going to irreversibly fuck this planet up (for any time scale that is relevant to our civilization, thereafter)
The fact that some scientists have flexible morals shouldn't be made equivalent to the fact that corporations have entirely inflexible null morals.
I never debated those things, why did you bring them up?
I apologize, I was answering the hypothetical answer to the GPs question... You know, the one you didn't actually answer.
Ya me too, I much prefer a climate that we're not evolved to survive in. Humanity sure flourished through the Dryas events, didn't they?
Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate, it only undermines the public's faith on their impartiality.
You've got the migration patterns wrong. Ideologues and zealots got into science, and drove the unbelievers out.
And know we might have am idea of where that missing heat went... Thereby possibly being able to improve the models.
How do you improve on perfection? The SCIENCE WAS SETTLED! Didn't you get the memo?
Do you have any idea how many trillions we've wasted economically on the global warming thing?
Uh, no I don't. How have we wasted trillions because of global warming?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's pretty much the first though I had. I'm not willing to automatically call shenanigans as I just don't have enough of a grounding in how current flows around the ocean. But at first glance it does sounds kind of suspect.
All climate models assume a lag between a cause and the observed results.
This just means the lag might be 30+ years.
How do you explain this lag?
Just setting a delay of 30 years is just another way of making a model into more of a mechanical Turk. If you don't have a hypothesis to why the delay should be for example 35 years rather than 34 or 36 then the model is no better than the lowest order polynomial that fits the value.
The big difference is that the polynomial will be a lot better at hinting at catastrophic climate change since it will take off towards an extreme high or low as soon as you leave the data range.
Just changing a model until it fits the data isn't good science. It isn't even science. You need to be able to motivate each parameter with something else than just "It has to be there, otherwise it doesn't follow the data."
You are attempting to compare very different things which either indicates a lack of understanding or a pretended one in some sort of attempt to decieve the gullible for political purposes.
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but your frequent earlier posts on this topic over the last few months indicate you are using pretended good old homespun stupidity as a vector to puch political propaganda - plus it's directly out of the fucking playbook.
If you are not being paid to push the view but are merely a cheerleader willing to trash their reputation to yell for the team I suppose not all of the stupidity is pretended.
But the bottom line is: people aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are...
Your post is strong evidence that at least one of us is. Since you're taking on and defaming scientists as a group, perhaps you would care to share your analysis leading to your figures of "trillions" and "5%".
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
3. warmer air increases the rate of evaporation
4. warmer air can hold more moisture
5. convection carries this additional heat away from the surface
6. precipitation returns significantly cooled moisture to the surface
7. the amount of heat trapping done by CO2 is minimal compared to other effects
8. the climate -- not weather -- models based upon the apparent curves have failed
9. this ocean thing may be why -- or it may not be
10. models of things that have not happened yet are not "settled science" until the thing actually happens at least once
11. technology is advancing rapidly, and this will likely further distort any model's predictions
SO, these first time predictions whose models have failed are worthy of at least some skepticism
BUT, if the earth does warm a bit, we should keep in mind it's been a great deal warmer previously, and was a garden at that time as near as we can tell, and further, this is substantiated by the fact that plants just love CO2.
AND, if the seas rise, they will do so extremely slowly, such that anyone who wishes to move will probably have done so long before they see a drop of water.
Change. It's what the earth does. We're part of the earth. Coincidence? lol
If this study is right then there will come a point when climate models are underestimating the warming again. The mechanism of this heat absorption is cyclical and eventually it will reverse leaving more heat in the atmosphere leading to rapid warming again. It's difficult if not impossible to put that into climate models partially because it's impossible (with our current knowledge) to know the timing of the switches in the cycle so models tend to just use the average which means sometimes their above the average and sometimes they're below.
The abstract:
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.
The question climate science deniers need to ask themselves is "If all of this heat is going into the ocean why hasn't it actually cooled rather than temperatures just sort of plateauing?" If all that heat is disappearing into the ocean and we're not actually cooling that means heat is still building up.
Here is what the temperature trendline looked like before and after 1999: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
"flatline" is really the wrong word...
Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In their Belly Button
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Strange how, just a knee-jerk you'll find some people defending the science, there are those that have the same knee-jerk reaction against any findings in this area. With all that uncontrollable knee-jerking on both sides - it seems that we have another great argument for universal health care, to get people's knees fixed again... But I digress...
Whether climate change is man-made or not - I don't think there is too much debate left on the matter. But, I'm no climate scientist, so for me personally it's a matter of "belief" that mankind is behind this. We may get some theories and models wrong on how fast global warming works - or why there may be a hiatus in it.
The question of whether we're behind this - take two past events and see how much influence we might have:
Remember the Icelandic volcano a few years back - in response to the volcanic ash, we grounded a lot of flights for a few days - and even in that time, we could measure how much the air changed - just by taking planes out of the picture for a few days.
Secondly, if you think mankind's influence isn't large enough given the size of the planet - look back at climate records around the time Krakatoa blew up - that one mountain exploding had a measurable impact on temperature and weather for 5 years; so, if a _single_ mountain on one day can create that kind of change -- are you sure, all of our industries around the world together over the course of years CAN'T?
What the planet is "too large for", is for us to do some quick and easy experiments to actually test our hypotheses quickly - so climate science does what it can mostly from observation and trying to identify as many factors as possible that DO have a measurable impact in order to MODEL what's going to happen and then wait and see how close these models correlate with what's happening.
Still useful... for what? that's the question.
If we're going to move to alternative energy, population control, costing in environmental damage as part of the economy, global justice, etc., climate models don't seem useful for that anymore. They are useful, but not useful enough for that application, still too wide an area of uncertainty. Nobody said the models had to be perfect, just fit for purpose.
They wouldn't be the first profession to squander away the high regard the public have for them.
Can't they just go back to being the old amiable nuclear-bomb-inventing mad scientists we cherish and love?
It doesn't mean climate models are useless at all. The phenomenon absorbing the heat that this paper studies is cyclical with 20-35 years between more and less absorption periods. That's difficult to model because it's probably impossible to predict the exact timing of the cyclical changes. One way to model that is it just take the long term average of heat absorption and accept that sometimes the model will over predict the warming and sometimes it will under predict the warming but the long term average will be about right. The findings of the paper don't contradict the fundamental assumptions of climate models but it may point the way to improvements in modeling the ocean portion of the models.
Pierre Latour is still wrong.
Things like ENSO and heat absorption in the Atlantic that the paper was about are cyclical. They neither add nor remove heat from the Earth system, they just change where it's going temporarily but average out to zero in the long run. A model isn't really expected to get the timing of these cyclical phenomena right, just the long term average. That means sometimes a model will be under the curve and sometimes it will be over the curve as the cycles cycle but it could still have the long term average right. The Earth is still gaining heat, otherwise this Atlantic heat absorption would have cause actual cooling instead of just a plateauing in temperature rises.
I hear the economists field is really a commons and they've made a bloody mess of it, some are calling it a tragedy.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.
From the commentary:
Recent papers have investigated this and found that when either observed ENSO conditions are forced on the model, or model runs are picked whose simulated ENSO matches observed ENSO there is better agreement with observed temperatures.
By the way, the models don't just overestimate warming since 1997ish, they also underestimate it before 1997.
If ENSO cannot be predicted to any great degree (it cannot), yet it has a major effect on climate models, and now another effect is found that is claimed to have a far greater effect than ENSO, what then?
ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.
(People who obsess about ENSO seem not to have heard of conservation of energy).
That is not a climate model. It has no physical basis. Models are not curve fitting.
Thermohaline circulation.
Two parts - "thermo" and "haline".
Of course hotter water rises, if the salinity is unchanged.
But add salt and things get more interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
Scepticism says: the climate change model is incorrect, we need to change the model. Denial says: the climate change model is incorrect, therefore climate change is wrong LA LA LA LA LA I cant hear you.
I agree. The problem is that quite often skeptics, that fit your exact description above, are labeled deniers.
The loudest skeptics are usually the least qualified to have an opinion. And the more qualified really don't seem too skeptical to me.
And even if the science ultimately proves false (which I personally doubt) why should it take a crisis to want to protect the environment? Or are the majority now just too young to remember L.A. in the sixties and seventies?
Because regulation cleaned up a lot of those problems. Just as China is currently learning.
Admittedly, many claims were overstated, and OBVIOUSLY any model of the climate of the entire planet will be incomplete. But really, how much of that was political posturing and pressuring the scientists to make it more 'important' to get something done? A bad choice perhaps, but on the other hand some things have been improved that probably would not of been addressed otherwise.
Then again, I heard theories about the ocean being a possible reason several years ago. It just seems that they have refined the cause down. IIRC, the earlier study could not pinpoint the mechanism that would account for how the apparent effect worked.
And it's not like it stopped, merely slowed, I just fail to understand societies preference for waiting until it's too late to act before acting. If there is any possibility of man influencing the climate at all, we should be doing all we can to mitigate it rather than wait and see. That is just fucking suicidal. And if you lived in L.A. in the sixties you don't need a scientist to tell you man has an effect on the environment.
I would rather an EPA that perhaps was a bit too over zealous than one that did nothing. I like clean air, water and my dirt uncontaminated.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
30 years equals one generation, so the previous one forgets the failures of the current one and falls for the scam yet again.
A lot of people don't the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Including an astonishing number of people who complain that "a lot of people don't know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory."
It's disturbing.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Life is too short to read the output of ideological idiots.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
"Shows the heat absent from the surface plunging int the North and South Altantic Ocean."
/Morbo
That is NOT HOW HEAT TRANSFER WORKS.
Where's your heat pump? Or what's the insulator that kept this cold water completely isolated from the surface for the last two hundred years? If you can't explain either of these two potential scenarios that could lead to what you say being true, you are making shut up to defend your moribund theory. I don't care which side you are on, that kind of behavior KILLS THE SCIENCE. Stop that shit.
realclimate makes claims about people and journals that dare publish what their coveted journals reject, which surely are not in the "scientific literature."
..perhaps you didnt notice the bashing because you wanted to do some swinging of the stick yourself...
And this is on top of the for-a-long-time-now well known blatant censorship at realclimate...
The people that run and moderate realclimate are precisely the "high priests" at the center of the issue. Their standard operating procedure when a paper finds its way into a journal they dont control which casts doubt on their own research is to (a) bash the journal, (b) bash the authors, and (c) post a fallacy-filled rebuttal that ultimately declares victory over the straw they constructed.
"His name was James Damore."
yeah, let's leave the important decissions to lawyers and economists, and not to scientists and engineers. Now THAT would lead to a great society !
If you examine the makeup of the elected portion of the government of the USA, that's what we have now.
Statistical basis.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So the technically trained, in your opinion, make for better leaders of society? Ironic, given the Slashdot story not so long ago about how a very high proportion of China's totalitarian rulers are engineers.
I take the opposite stance, as expressed by William F. Buckley's well-known quote: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
Disclaimer: I'm an engineer.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Oh, but we are "fucking" up the planet. Age isn't about "green", unless you mean dollar,yen or euro. Green is keeping the planet habitable for " man": and women are included in that. Solar green is shifting money to untaxable locations and hiding it. It takes monies to clean pollution up, good science and an educated public, a are necessary. That's not in the plan for solar greens. Your tax dollars are being wasted by that little diversion called hate the world, kill the darkie, kill the white, and kill the other. That's what the real green solar agenda seems to be.
Really. Why is it that the north polar cap melts in July august? And the south polar cap, happens to gain ice during those same months? By the way did you happen to see the article about the ring of fire there? Or several years ago read the article about the newly discovered volcano's under the icecaps of the article? But no one in artic science reported those, seems they must be secret, like sub's using the noise to sit outside ports? Maybe that's why some of the ports were ice free in article areas... I wonder what else was hidden by/for a forgetful/gullible public.
The science drove the unbeleivers out.
That's how science works.
You don't get to question Einstein just because.
The more evidence for the prevailing theory piles up, the greater the burden of proof you must overcome in order to overturn the consensus.
You don't have the automatic right to considered just as valid just because you have the ability to say "well, i think it's....". You need a damn good pile of data to back you up.
and right now, the cranks have diddly squat.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Troll, edumicate thyself:
Global Warming 'Pause' Isn't What Climate Change Skeptics Say It Is
http://www.weather.com/news/sc...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You're not in much of a position to be presuming to know what I think.
You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?
If so, then we should congratulate you and you win this one, if not, then's he right and you lose.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Is your argument that since there are some who make money through questionable methods in a given field, then the whole field is inherently a scam? By that (broken) logic, I could also say:
"dude, there is so much money in Religion that there's no way to stop the gravy train. there's no way you can stop the gravy train." (Billions made, Tax Free!, that should piss off everyone).
"dude, there is so much money in Fossil Fuels that there's no way to stop the gravy train. there's no way you can stop the gravy train." (They stand to lose WAY more than the scientists stand to gain if AGW is true, doesn't it make sense that they would do everything they can to try to misinform people so they can continue to make as much money as possible?).
etc...
Let me as you (and the parent) as simple question:
What would it take to convince you that AGW is real?
I ask because there is a mountain of evidence for it. And, to be honest, not a whole lot of evidence against it. Granted, there have been some misteps but misteps doesn't mean that the problem isn't real, it means that our description of the problem needs refinement... big difference.
Even climatologists that support the theory of man influenced climate change
Which is to say, what, 99.8% of them??
Do you have any idea how many trillions we've wasted economically on the global warming thing?
It's true, vast sums of money pissed away cleaning up pollution and emissions, billions wasted developing more efficient technology... And noting to show for it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You don't get to question Einstein just because.
Actually, you do. Thats what makes it science.
In science, to do the methodology properly, you are NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES supposed to 'believe' you 'know' ANYTHING. Ever.
You seem to think that certain things are supposed to be believed regardless of conflicting evidence and only with substantial proof against what you WANT to believe, then its questionable. Thats exactly the opposite of proper science.
Science is completely centered around questioning the theories and accepted ideas, constantly.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
What does seem to be news to everyone that isn't a skeptic is that the models are almost all wrong in one direction: more warming. The alarmists in general still refuse to accept that the fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are vastly overstated.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Wasted depends on if it is or isn't reality.
If global warming is an issue, we've not really 'wasted' anything.
If it is an issue, you could point to many things, carbon credits be the first thing that comes to mind since it seems to be coming up often lately. Though I would argue that curbing CO2 output is good for our lungs regardless of the global warming situation.
All the time spent investigating it, all the scientists spending time working on it, politics related to it, this discussion is an example of possible waste due to global warming ... IF its more than just a natural cycle.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The moment someone asks for "peer-reviewed" rebuttal is the moment I know they either don't know what they are talking about or they are vicious liars. You can't have "peer-review" standard in the situation in which the whole field is accused of fraud. We don't ask for peer-review of drug dealing charges by other drug dealers. In this situation the field has to stand up to a higher standard than peer-review. It has to withstand the critical review. The field is accused of being incestuous (in the sense of being self-selecting by rejecting everyone who is not a fawning supporter). This self-selecting membership makes peer-review irrelevant. You get to pick your peers. You don't get to pick who is qualified to be your critics.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
There are lots of things we know with certainty.
i think richard feynman put it best.
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
"Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming." Read that again and think about what the words actually mean.
warming: increase in temperature
anomaly: difference in average temperature from a defined period (that's how the word is generally used in climate science)
A hiatus in growth of the anomaly really does mean a cessation of warming. It make pick up again later.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
You didn't answer the question. You simply made an erroneous assertion.
Well, I do prefer a climate that we're evolved in to survive. Which is why it would actually not be such a bad thing if the current ice age came to an end. We are currently in an ice age with rapid temperature fluctuations. That is not what mammals or primates evolved in. It's probably one of the most challenging climates in the history of the planet, short of snowball earth. I refer you to the cold temperatures and rapid temperature fluctuations that started about 7 million years ago and have been getting more and more extreme:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Conveniently, there are temperature predictions from the worst case IPCC predictions (RPC8.5) in that graph, which show you that those would merely take us back to the climate of 7 million years ago, just about pre-ice-age.
We should be so lucky. In reality, RPC8.5 is not a reasonable prediction, and humans will stop burning fossil fuels due to market forces long before that. Unfortunately, we will probably not be able to end the current ice age.
Well, no, it probably was not so pleasant for humanity. Since the Dryas events were periods when a period of rapid global warming was interrupted and a previous cold climate was restored, I'm not sure in what way you think that that's an argument for keeping the climate cold. Colder temperatures are generally not a good thing.
Humanity clearly did flourish during the period of rapid global warming and sea level rise that started 20000 years ago and ended about 2000 years ago.
If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked. Well, maybe not completely. Some more than others. But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.
We already know that these models useless at predicting. Which rather implies that ALL of them have at least one fundermentally wrong assumption.
How many truely independent models exist anyway?
Global Warming!!!!
Winning!
No, they generally just predicted the doom of humanity, or at least their own nation, to get politicians to act their way. Predicting the doom of the entire planet is less common, but I guess all things are getting bigger and more global, including scientific FUD.
Corporations don't have morals, they respond to what the people actually want, as expressed by what they are willing to pay money for. The people want cheap transportation, bright lights, lots of gadgets, and entertainment, and that's what corporations deliver. That's a whole lot better than putting people with "flexible morals" in charge, in particular putting them in charge of something as dangerous as directing corporations to do things.
Of course you didn't "debate them"; you prefer to ignore them because they destroy your point that we'd be better off following the policies advocated by scientists. Given the fact that scientists have historically advocated policies that have destroyed entire nations, we should be very careful in following their advice. We should, of course, listen to what they have to say ("it's been getting warmer"), but not necessarily to their policies ("therefore, you must sharply limit carbon emissions").
So you didn't even read TFS. If you did you'd see how ocean surface temperatures can affect temperatures lower down.
But you're beyond not trying to answer your own questions. You've become a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, while a real, factually provable conspiracy operates to maintain your belief.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
Nonsense. The issue is that people who do fear certain political actions are badmouthing the underlying science and the scientists involved instead of debating political questions. I wish we would actually debate how to best deal with global warming instead of whether it exists or what causes it.
The hypothesis described in this article should be easy to test. Has there been a program of benthic temperature measurements at given places in the world over a "long" period of time? If so, how do today's temperatures compare with that record? Temperatures taken at depth should represent long-term averages, immune to all the short-term effects that go on near the surface.
No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless [arstechnica.com].
Agreed, but how good are the climate models is a very important question. Plenty of people are pushing very, very hard for sweeping large scale economic and political level reforms based on the results of these models. Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development, particularly in developing nations like China, and significantly cutting those means significant economic fallout.
Look at the IPCC assessments and you can see what their current assessment of climate model reliability is. They rank it to be quite high. At the exact same time, they also note that climate models are NOT well agreed on what SIGN to place on the impact of cloud feedback. Apologies if it makes me sound like I'm cherry picking my data. Clouds contribute significantly more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and models are uncertain what SIGN to place on clouds? I DO NOT believe the certainty the models can give on CO2 impact is all that powerful while there remains disagreement on the sign to attribute to clouds. Most importantly to all of us stuck on this rock, it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.
ok then, how did we spend trillions on AGW?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You do realize you sound crazy.... right? The "green" solar agenda is to shift money to untaxable locations and hide it (I thought that was EVERYONE's agenda), and to divert the world's attention by hating the world and killing everyone?
I... wow. What does anyone say to that? Where did you GET that?
There are two ice caps. The one that is ice floating in warming water is melting. The other one is over a land mass, and hence not melting with warming water. The mount of ice on the southern pole is regulated by wind and snowfall. More heat in the system makes more vigorous winds, hence freezing more.
This is not unexplained. You just didn't look.
If this study is right then there will come a point when climate models are underestimating the warming again
True, assuming that's the only significant unknown in the climate. What do you think are the chances of that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, they want to avoid any change since that risks the status quo that works just fine for them and their buddies. Demanding more evidence is simply a delay tactic at this point.
And they're never more ingenious than when they're coming up with excuses for why they don't need to change. Which is their problem when it's their own body or personal life they're ruining, but becomes my problem when it's the entire world that's at stake.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
That is exactly what we are debating. And the best way of dealing with it is to ignore it, because the costs of dealing with global warming down the road are tiny compared to the costs of limiting emissions right now, for any realistic IPCC scenario. The problem is that climate scientists and their activist friends are unwilling to accept basic economics and keep making proposals outside their domain of expertise.
Do enlighten us - please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
Strangely, all the examples I can find just support the consensus view.
How does 95 different climate models, returning 95 different results, all of which fail to approximate real-world data support a consensus view, and what does a consensus have to do with science in the first place? Here's a clue, if you want me to make an effort to reduce my "carbon footprint" and spend more of my hard earned money to achieve the same, don't hide your supporting original research behind a paywall. I'm not convinced by the interpretations of a Journalism Major that graduated from a liberal arts college in matters of real science, most of those dwebes couldn't pass a real laboratory science class if their lives depended on it; let's see what Journalists have to say after they've passed Calc I &II, DifEq, Stats and a Physics class!
I did read the Press Release and found an interesting reference to the fear of an impending ice-age back in the '70s
seems like that means that all of the Warmists who claimed that fear of an ice age during the 1970's was denialist propaganda, are either incompetent researchers or bald-faced liars. Oh by the way if you want to know more about the 30/60 year quasi-periodic warming and cooling cycles due to the ADO and PDO, ther is tons of info over at WattsUpWithThat to get you started.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Not true! Only about a third of them are oil shills. Another third are coal shills, and the rest are mostly just idiotic dupes.
Selection bias. They went looking for heat sinks and found them. Heat sinks that have always been there and with no proposed mechanism for them accelerating. Just arm waving.
The no doubt walked past a dozen heat sources, but ignored them. The heat is from CO2, that's already settled in their minds.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm not sure you can call this an unknown. We've known for a long time heat is absorbed in the ocean in this way and about the specific currents in the Atlantic that this paper is examining. It's just that since the ARGO floats were deployed starting 12 years ago we are better able to quantify the effects now.
Symptom does not mean what you think it does. It does not only mean indicators of a disease.
The only source of heat on the Earth is the Sun with minor, rounding error level contributions from geothermal processes and human heat production. As far as accelerating the phenomena the paper talks about is known to be cyclical with a 20 to 35 year periodicity so there are times when it absorbs more heat and time when it absorbs less. As far as CO2 goes, it doesn't produce any heat either, it just changes the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere which affects the energy balance of the planet. More CO2 (and other GHGs) means an increase in temperature as the energy balance adjusts.
I'm not sure you can call this an unknown.
Then the models should have accounted for it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Really? Where can I sign up for some?
And here I thought the factual evidence was that the petrochemical industry was pouring literally tens of millions to deny it, creating and funding think tanks, TV ads, and paying politicians, oh, sorry, bundlng campaign contributions, and dumping into 527s (is it?)
mark "there are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires... and suckers"
The only source of heat on the Earth is the Sun with minor, rounding error level contributions from geothermal processes and human heat production
If you're going to talk about rounding errors, you ought to mention we can't accurately figure out how much warming the earth's atmosphere does to within 10 degrees Celsius. That is, if the earth didn't have an atmosphere at all, there is significant uncertainty in how warm the earth would be.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I don't know, I tend to support whatever leads us to a more efficient use of our hydrocarbon resources as a society. I look at this as the greatest economic opportunity of our times, as it's pretty clear to me, the remaining hydrocarbons yet to be extracted would be far more beneficial to society as a strategic fuel source, and source of polymers, rather than literally burning it 'up in smoke' out of our tailpipes.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
2. CO2 traps heat (experiments showing that are all over the internet.)
Any "experiment" about CO2 "trapping" heat, you see on the internet will vary from amusing naiveté, to blatant fraud like the Al Gore/Bill Nye demonstration; they will all be wrong.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The science drove the unbeleivers out.
That's how science works.
You don't get to question Einstein just because.
The more evidence for the prevailing theory piles up, the greater the burden of proof you must overcome in order to overturn the consensus.
You don't have the automatic right to considered just as valid just because you have the ability to say "well, i think it's....". You need a damn good pile of data to back you up.
and right now, the cranks have diddly squat.
I thought Einstein was the guy who said "You don't need a consensus to disprove a theory, you just need one person" or something close to it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine is peer reviewed to!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The models were doing pretty well until the 21st-century slowdown. At that point, we have two possible explanations: that the warming of the planet has slowed considerably (since it's still been getting warmer), or the heat is going somewhere else. If the total warming has slowed, that's good news (although hard to explain). If the heat's just going somewhere else, that heat sink is likely to become less accessible (as it apparently was during the 1990s), or fill up, and the atmospheric temperatures are going to go up fast again.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm going to suggest that scientists are better at this science thing than other people, and that decision makers should listen to them. What to do about global warming is a political and economic decision, not a scientific one, but if you want to make actual good decisions (as opposed to decisions that will keep the Koch campaign donations coming in), you need to know what's happening.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sure you get to question Einstein. The question is whether anybody should listen to you, and that depends entirely on what you've got for evidence and competing theories. If you can come up with a competing theory that explains the observations we've already got, and predicts other observations we haven't made yet to be different from what relativity predicts, great!
Similarly, you get to question global warming. However, unless you have some sort of evidence, as opposed to mass character attacks on scientists, nobody should pay attention to you.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Okay, so why would you think the whole scientific field would be fraudulent? What, aside from the fact that you don't like their conclusions, would give you that idea? What evidence do the accusers have that the problem is with a whole group of scientists?
Something like 97% of peer-reviewed papers agree with AGW, which suggests that 3% don't, so any scientists in the field who disagree can still publish. Now, if some scientist comes up with something that overthrows a major part of a field of science, that scientist is going to be famous, so there's a big incentive to refute AGW if possible.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're not necessarily going to be better off following policies advocated by scientists, since scientists tend to be lousy politicians. We're almost certainly going to be a lot worse off if we ignore scientists talking about what will happen under certain circumstances.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Halite is the mineral name for salt, sodium chloride salt, so thermohaline circulation refers to both the temperature and the salinity effect on the water's density and flow.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Nitpick much? What's happened is that atmospheric temperatures in the 21st Century have gone up considerably slower than in the 1990s. They have still gone up. If you want to reword that, feel free.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There are tons of real problems to solve like access to energy and sanitation and global warming expenditures often only make those harder and more expensive.
And your source of that economic statement is....?
What would the cost be of sea level rising 10m as opposed to attempts to limit CO2 production?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not saying it's a scam. I'm saying now that the idea has built momentum and there's money to be made, AGW like TSA or NASA or the F-35 -- it keeps going because influential people are making money. It will be really hard to kill it off.
I don't know about that the temperature anomaly has been stuck in the neighborhood of 0.3 for a long time.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
A lot of people don't the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. These climate change models are just hypothesis in software form. We won't able to run experiments for these hypothesis in our lifetimes, and in turn they will never reach the level of a scientific theory in our lifetime.
There's an oversimplified version of the Scientific Method that says we start with a scientific hypothesis, which is a conjecture or a guess, then we run an experiment, the experiment either contradicts the hypothesis or confirms it, and after X number of confirming experiments the hypothesis becomes a Theory. In practice, its more complicated than that and the transition from a conjecture to a theory is not binary. The theory of anthropomorphic global climate change is a large set of interlocking and overlapping smaller theories combined. For example, the theory of the greenhouse effect is strongly confirmed: different gasses in the atmosphere affect the absorption and radiation of infrared radiation in different ways, affecting the amount of net heat energy trapped on the surface of the Earth and lost to space. That's pretty settled. We can't, of course, experiment with thousands of different planet's atmospheres to test that theory in the simplified way, but we can do experiments on smaller scales and correlate them with Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheric conditions of other planets we can observe.
We know the first order effect of increased CO2: it tends to trap more heat energy. But that doesn't automatically mean global temperatures have to rise. That's the natural presumption, but Earth's surface is a complex environment. More heat energy could cause more clouds to form, causing a negative feedback effect which tends to slow or halt increased temperatures by blocking radiation from reaching the surface. The oceans have a huge impact on energy distribution on the surface of the Earth, and can sequester heat energy for a very long time in principle.
However, the net result of all of these various conjectures and theories in the aggregate is that the most logical explanation for the observed increase in global surface temperatures over time is the increase in CO2 caused primarily by human activity. That statement is less a theory, and more of an explanation for all the other smaller theories that individually explain small parts of the whole.
The transition from scientific hypothesis or conjecture rests not just with how many experimental wins the conjecture accumulates, but also the degree to which the conjecture accurately makes useful predictions and the degree to which it synergizes and accommodates other more well confirmed theories. We're never going to be able to experiment with other universes in all likelihood, but that doesn't mean the Big Bang will always be a scientific conjecture. Philosophers might make that claim, but the Big Bang is considered a genuine scientific theory because it makes testable predictions that are not just confirmable, but very powerful and wide-reaching. There's no obvious reason why we should observe the nucleosynthetic proportions we see in the observable universe, and yet the Big Bang makes very specific predictions about how much helium we should see relative to hydrogen. If the Big Bang was wrong, the odds of it making such a prediction accurately are extremely low. At some point, its not luck but skill, and in the same way at some point scientists decide a conjecture can't be that lucky, and therefore must, to a high degree of probability, incorporate some fundamental truth about the universe. It might not be precisely right, but it can't be completely wrong.
Over three hundred years after Newton published Principia, the theory of Newtonian gravity has held up remarkably well. Einstein didn't completely overthrow Newton, and after centuries its highly unlikely anything will: it simply makes too many predictions that are always confirmed. What Einstein did was modify Newton's
Regardless of the role of skepticism, everybody seems to be overlooking one key point: If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked. Well, maybe not completely. Some more than others. But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.
Actually, that's not true, or at least its an exaggeration. If this paper is correct, what it actually says is that most of the models out there may have been basically correct, but missing an important parameter: an additional heat sequester due to deep ocean currents. No model is perfect, and when modelling a system as large and complex as the Earth, you have to work hard to simplify what you can to make the model work at all, while not oversimplifying to the point of eliminating the validity of the model's results. And most climatologists have known for a long time that the largest blind spot in most climate models is the Earth's oceans. That's why this sort of research even happens in the first place.
Would you know a fallacy-filled rebuttal if it bit you on the ass? I don't know anything about the people at realclimate, but bashing journal and authors and issuing a rebuttal seems reasonable if the paper is crap science.
My personal theory is that most climate scientists are honest, most anti-AGW papers are crap, and that there's a big smear campaign going on by people who stand to lose money if somebody does something constructive. It fits the facts that I've seen very nicely.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What do you think the scientific method is? What we have here is a theory that says that the planet is warming up at a certain place. We find that air temperatures are not rising as fast as expected, so if the theory's correct there has to be another place the heat is going. So, people look for the other place. If they find one, they can incorporate that into the general science. If they can't find one, it casts doubt on the theory. In the meantime, everybody's free to look for some other theory that fits as well.
Think about the Newtonian model of gravitation. Consider that Uranus wasn't behaving the way the theory predicted, so some scientists tried to make the data fit the hypothesis by postulating another planet beyond Uranus. Are you saying that the search for Neptune was unscientific? (And, of course, the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury turned out not to be due to another planet, but were explained by relativity. This can go both ways, but I do claim that the search for Vulcan was good science.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
I believe climatologists have a better understanding of economics than economists or politicians have of climatology.
I think the people best in a position to think about this problem rationally tend to be actuaries; insurance professionals. Insurance professionals have to apply imperfect knowledge and incomplete risk models and make economic decisions within that environment all the time. They don't always get it right, but moreso than most they tend to balance the two on at least large scales on some rational basis. Insurance companies tend to believe that the odds of economic damage due to climate change are high enough to be financially material. In other words they are tending to bet it is happening, will get worse, and they have to budget for that eventuality.
That doesn't mean they are right or that Scientific judgment should rest with actuaries. It simply means if the argument is that unless Scientists are 100% certain, and even if they are, they shouldn't be telling people how to spend their money, that's actually true to an extent. But they do have the right to advocate no different than anyone else does, and that advocacy tends to be based on something other than political ideology. And the actual people whose jobs it is to actually try to understand the risks on a technical level and also the economics on a macro level aren't siding with the skeptics. So the skeptics can't argue that presuming climatologists are correct is not economically practical to people who have to think about money. Scientific consensus has been pretty broad for quite some time, but in the last five years I've seen a shift even in areas like the broader business community and the military that ignoring the real risks that global climate change will have significant negative impacts is foolhardy. They aren't betting it *will* happen, they are doing what risk managers do: they have assessed the risk that the scientists are *close enough* to being right that its worth acting on that risk.
So yeah, scientists should do Science and economists should do Economics, but what the rest of the world should be doing is risk management. By the time 100% certainty for all aspects of all elements of climatology arrives, it will be History. But its way past the point where practical people with unbiased objective outlooks should be considering risk management: reducing the risks where possible and planning for the risks where necessary. And even the cold blood bean counters are starting to do that in earnest now.
"Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact."
If the Earth had no atmosphere it would have an average temperature similar to the Moon's (about -5C according to Wikipedia) but it wouldn't have a great a range as the Moon because it revolves in 24 hours rather than 28 days. There might be some small albedo differences but without an atmosphere there would be little water so not much ice to affect that. Maybe you're talking about an atmosphere without CO2 in it but I think we could figure that out to better than 10 C too.
How can models account for something where the periodicity is only known to +/- 7.5 years? As I said this new more detailed information may lead to improvements in the ocean portions of climate models.
So you think political science trumps climate science? Good luck with that.
There might be some small albedo differences but without an atmosphere there would be little water so not much ice to affect that.
It would actually be a big albedo difference.
but I [guess] we could figure that out to better than 10 C too.
That's you're problem, you're speculating. Find out, like I did, instead of speculating.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That is exactly what we are debating.
Obviously we are also debating whether global warming exists or is caused by humans. To me - as a scientist - this is a deeply worrying sign of ignorance.
And the best way of dealing with it is to ignore it, because the costs of dealing with global warming down the road are tiny compared to the costs of limiting emissions right now, for any realistic IPCC scenario.
This is an interesting opinion. You present it as obvious, but it is the opposite of what most people who studied this seems to think.
The problem is that climate scientists and their activist friends are unwilling to accept basic economics and keep making proposals outside their domain of expertise.
This is clearly not basic economics. Is is more about estimating future risks and estimating economic cost which seems difficult to me. The term "climate scientists and their activist friends" also indicates a bit of paranoid thinking.
Something like 97% of peer-reviewed papers agree with AGW, which suggests that 3% don't, so any scientists in the field who disagree can still publish.
3%? As in outside of, what is it, 2.2 sigma? That sounds like a statistical error that is to be expected in any self-selection group.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Now, if some scientist comes up with something that overthrows a major part of a field of science, that scientist is going to be famous, so there's a big incentive to refute AGW if possible.
This idiotic sophism has been so often refuted, that any attempt to do so again seems futile. In fact, if I were in a fouler mood, it would elicit the well-deserve soup of expletives in your direction. But hey, I am not there yet.
So once again, any self-selected group cannot be considered honest if they are not open to criticism or introspection from outside experts. The AGW camp is just such a group. If you are one of them, you are a "peer". If you are a renowned world-expert on a subject on which these "peers" make statements, but you yourself are not an expert on their entire subject, when you ask questions on the field of your expertise, they brand you a denier, bring out the tar and feathers and drag your name through the mud. So not only are they not open to any outside criticism, they, under the threat of destroying people's careers, actively discourage any outside experts from questioning their "findings."
This is a classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... type of logical fallacy.
I am glad we've covered that so that the next rabid dog foaming at the mouth, because his favorite politicians or celebrities told him to support AGW, can repeat this fallacy again.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If there were no atmosphere there would be no ice (except maybe some pockets at the poles like the Moon). So the surface albedo wouldn't be that different from the Moon.
Perhaps you could point me to the research that says we can't figure it out to better than 10 C.
If there were no atmosphere there would be no ice (except maybe some pockets at the poles like the Moon). So the surface albedo wouldn't be that different from the Moon.
The moon is white, significantly more reflective than the earth
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Much as Budgenator said, the haline in thermohaline refers to salt.
There is a common pattern in some words with Greek and Latin roots, where the Greek will start with H while the Latin starts with S. So it is here with haline (Greek root) and saline (Latin root).
Other examples include Greek hyper and Latin super ("over, above" -- remember that the Y in Greek roots was often pronounced more like an ü, and not like the /ai/ sound of English eye or hyper), Greek hypo and Latin sub ("under, beneath"), Greek hept- and Latin sept- ("seven").
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
http://www.natureworldnews.com...
the remaining hydrocarbons yet to be extracted would be far more beneficial to society as a strategic fuel source, and source of polymers, rather than literally burning it 'up in smoke' out of our tailpipes.
I've often wondered this, if in the future we will say, "what idiots we were, burning that valuable stuff now that we know what we can do with it!"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Don't you think that without an atmosphere the Earth's surface would move toward that state as well?
Yes, if the earth were the same color as the moon, it would have a similar albedo
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Um... have you bothered to look at the raw temperature records?
ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.
This is completely irrelevant to my point, which was not about the total energy budget.
THE PURPOSE of models is to do forecasting. So far, no models can accurately project the behavior of ENSO. Now we have a proposed cycle that supposedly drives or at least overwhelms ENSO, but is equally unpredictable. At least so far.
If the model can't forecast not just ENSO, but a larger cycle that supposedly drives or overwhelms ENSO, then the models are that much LESS useful for forecasting.
Get it? I made no comment about energy either staying or leaving. Conservation of energy is not relevant to this point.
The correctness or incorrectness of a model is not a binary problem. As has been famously said, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." So the idea that if a model isn't (close to) perfect it's results have to be ignored is an absolutist position that has no place in science.
That being the case, you may thank me for the educate I gave you on the topic that led to you changing your mind.
You didn't "educate me" about anything. Fourier's own writings make it clear that he initially believed De Saussure's apparatus warmed via trapping of radiation, which we know today to be false. It worked by preventing convective cooling... just like a real greenhouse does. No "trapping of radiation" was involved... which we KNOW from hundreds of years now of observation of real greenhouses. Yes, I'm saying Fourier (at the time he wrote those notes) was wrong.
He later postulated that gas in the sky could work via a similar mechanism, holding energy by trapping radiation. However, he correctly noted that the effect in the atmosphere would not be the same, because it includes convection. The problem with this idea is that the first effect -- the radiation trapping -- did not occur at all (we know this from real greenhouses).
The point of the particular comment which you linked to above was not that the greenhouse effect does not exist (that's a different discussion). The point was that the "physics" it was based on was an incorrect conjecture by Fourier about De Saussure's apparatus. The effect did not exist in De Saussure's apparatus. All of the temperature is accounted for by absorption by the blackened cork, and lack of convective cooling.
You then go on to state that if there were no radiation trapping, all the radiation would go straight off to space and the earth would be very cold. But if you really believe that to be true, I suggest you look up how long it takes lunar regolith (in no atmosphere) to cool entirely by radiation once it rotates out of sunlight. You're in for a very big surprise.
You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?
I've written multiple detailed comments to other people about specific claims about the science. If you wish to interpret them as saying "the greenhouse effect does not exist" that is your business, but it is not quite what I said and not what I was thinking.
I think it's too bad that Feynman isn't still alive. It would be interesting to see what he had to say about all of you folks trying to use his words to cast doubt on current climate theory. Do you have any real evidence that climate scientists aren't practicing science as outlined by Feynman? All of the doubt is no doubt well represented in the scientific literature and scientific discussions but when it comes to the general public without scientific training expressing the doubt mostly just confuses them.
If you would like to get a real "education" about what Fourier said on the matter, you can find it here.
Just for the record, you are my favorite imbecile.
How does it feel to have an imbecile demonstrate you to be wrong on both of the points you tried to make?
Most people who have studied "this" (i.e. climate change) are not economists; therefore, they lack the background and the qualifications to make informed judgments about what actions we should take in response to climate change.
The IPCC has estimated the future effects and costs. Their estimates are biased, but even taking them at face value, it is still clear from an economic point of view that the right course of action is to do nothing.
No, that's not what we're debating. Climate scientists and activists use accusations of ignorance, ad hominems, and straw men as a debating strategy.
I think that is a reasonably neutral way to refer to these two groups. How do you think I should refer to these two related groups that hold friendly views of each other?
Scientists are highly political creatures, and when they engage in political advocacy, they very frequently misuse their scientific credentials.
In the end, what this comes down to is whether we, as a society, should leave these kinds of decisions to government selected experts. You may be of the opinion that we should. But if you accuse people who disagree with you of being unscientific or corrupt, you have crossed a line.
Good. When I say that "we should take no action", what I mean is that government should take no action, because government programs are going to delay whatever needs to be done. The free market (insurance companies, developers, energy companies, etc.) will respond appropriately all by itself.
Go look up the costs and risks in the IPCC report; it's all there.
Again, where did I say that we should "ignore" them? Climate scientists have made various predictions for how climate is going to change under various emission scenarios; that is their area of expertise. It's useful information that we should pay attention to. But choosing not to act on the recommendations of climate scientists isn't "ignoring" them, it is recognizing that climate scientists lack the expertise or authority to recommend policy.
It is rational to acknowledge the emission scenarios and predictions of climate scientists and completely reject any form of government action to try to reduce emissions. In fact, I think it is the only rational position.
I don't have a kill file, but you certainly are in my "stupidity alert file".
And then they affirm their lack of scientific integrity with a site ban.
No, they just don't countenance bullshit.
I see people claiming that something is without a doubt 100% certain and truth. Which is why I linked that speech.
there are plenty of scientists out there who know the limitations of what they know, and there are a few who are more certain than they should be. When measures are proposed from theories where the measures are likely to destroy some people's livelihoods,the amount of certainty people want can differ. Those who aren't likely to be adversely affected by the measures are the most likely to want to push forward. Those that will be adversely affected, want to be truly sure it is worth it.
wanting to protect the environment from people can be a nice goal, but people need resources. It doesn't matter if we become 30% more energy efficient across the board when the population doubles.
As well as being the foremost expert in radiative physics, he is also an expert in digital forensics. He claims that Obama is not eligible for presidency - he has "proof" that Obama's birth certificate is fake - (but don't call him a birther!)
ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict
Although they don't predict the timing of such events, I was under the impression that these properties did emerge in the models. For example: http://www.eposters.net/pdfs/e...
What about them? When I say the Earth is still gaining heat I'm including the oceans as well as the atmosphere.
If that's really your attitude then you must be some sort of right-wing tax-avoiding nut job.
American? That would explain it!
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I just tighten the coathanger holding the wheel on.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
climate change is just a BS scheme to institute a worldwide tax.
Sometimes it seems like that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I am not sure that there has been any such Hiatus (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/7#temp).
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/)
May I have overseen something? Like the Hollow Earth theory or Bigfoot?
Oh yes, the links belong to the NOAA, the same source used by the Evil(TM) IPCC (Illuminati Pokemon Collectors Club)... so, may you be so kind as to provide any alternate DATASETS (nope, I'm not interested in distorted graphics based on your momma's basal temperature).
NOTE: You may be talking about the STRATOSFERIC TEMPERATURE, which indeed raises at a slower level than SURFACE TEMPERATURE.
BUTWhen we talk about Global Warming, we are not talking about the Stratosphere... mainly because we don't give a flying fuck about how cold or warm it is up there as we happen to live on the SURFACE of the planet and not in balloons. AND to make matters worse, even up there temperatures are indeed rising.
And yes, I know: Global Warming is a big hoax created by Obama to forbid the hard working US citizen to openly carry their RPG-7 and to tax the hell out of them.
God Bless the Tea Party!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Really? You've got a refutation that says that a scientist can come up with something that overthrows a major part of a field of science, that scientist isn't going to be famous? Do tell.
It's entirely possible that a self-selected group does contain all the experts on something; does that make them dishonest?
Last time I asked for a name of somebody "dragged through the mud", I was given the name of somebody who didn't get his paper published in a particular journal, and got butthurt about it. So, I'm going to ask for specifics.
Can you name somebody who is a renowned world-expert on a subject affected by global warming, who asked questions on the field of their expertise, and was branded a denier and had his or her career threatened? Two or three such people?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No it's about shouting political slogans on a tech site.
The "benefit of the doubt" is given once or twice and not more than twenty times to people like the repeat offender above otherwise they just see you as a gullible fool to be exploited.
ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.
THE PURPOSE of models is to do forecasting. So far, no models can accurately project the behavior of ENSO.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
ENSO is irrelevant to climate, it's interesting for weather forecasting.
Freeman Dyson
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Nate Silver
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It's entirely possible that a self-selected group does contain all the experts on something; does that make them dishonest?
Only if they are hostile to anyone questioning them (as AGW camp is). The point which you yourself so eloquently demonstrate by this
Last time I asked for a name of somebody "dragged through the mud", I was given the name of somebody who didn't get his paper published in a particular journal, and got butthurt about it.
use of a jailhouse metaphor in reference to a scientist. A scientist whose name you don't mention despite the fact that you yourself insist on specifics.
I listed 2 names which I can recall just off the top of my head. Little research would show many more
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I am curious though. You can't really be that oblivious to the pernicious effect of people such as yourself. There is no way you live in such a bubble that you don't get the full effect of branding skeptics as "deniers". No one can be that tone deaf. You are just trolling, aren't you?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
again. not flamebait.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think what we are seeing here is caused by the "publish or perish"
paradigm. The deep ocean currents capturing energy and storing it and moving
it around the globe has been known for a long time. The climate modelers
chose to ignore it so they could simplify things and write something that
looked "close enough" and publish *something* before their funding ran out.
Or they hand-waived and said it was too expensive to acquire accurate
time-series data from deep ocean currents, and hence, ignored. The "peer
review" cycle is just so much crap, since if I constantly poo-poo your
results, you'll do the same for my results. If we aren't in positions to do
that, then we aren't 'peers'.
The corollary here is that climate models simply cannot be made to be
accurate without 'all the data', and 'all the data' is either too expensive
to acquire, or can't be acquired in a short enough time to publish in the
peer review cycle.
It happens all the time in academia, and is a big part of this whole
problem. How do you tease out the "close enough" BS results from the "what
really happens" models? Good luck with that! Just don't claim 'deniers' are
the problem here. They are obviously not the problem.
In the end, what this comes down to is whether we, as a society, should leave these kinds of decisions to government selected experts. You may be of the opinion that we should. But if you accuse people who disagree with you of being unscientific or corrupt, you have crossed a line.
I would also be perfectly happy with picking climatologists at random. The result would be about the same as picking physicists at random to decide whether gravity officially exists.
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
If your wording indicates exactly the meaning you wanted to convey, then YOU just demonstrated perfectly what the real problem is: a large portion of our decisions makers have not gotten past the 'is it warming?' part of all this.
If we had believed the scientists 20 years ago about the warming, we could have spent the last 20 years debating what to do about it... and not whether it is actually happening.
Industry attempted to mislead the public and use Congress to determine whether it was safe to infuse every square inch of our environment with particulate lead, our rain with sulfuric and nitric acid, our atmosphere with CFCs, our water with poisons.
Don't forget the period of time when the harms of smoking were "debated".
Personally, when a large amount of scientists start screaming about there being serious consequences to something going on, I'd listen to them.
Oh come on. You know this time it is totally different... because.. uhm, freedom?
My mod stalker sure has a lot of points to abuse
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And this idiocy still gets modded "insightful" while actual science gets modded "troll".
Stupid fucking mod system.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Pity you never made it past the end of my first sentence (starting with "I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but") before you decided to post. What exactly inspired such behaviour?
The second sentence started with "I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt".
That would be news, yes. While it's quite true that surface temperatures haven't increased much recently, ocean temperatures are still warming at least as fast as ever. Which is exactly what TFA describes - the extra surface heat is being moved into the oceans. All other examples of this effect have been cyclical - in the near future, the process will reverse, moving heat from the oceans to the surface. When that happens, surface temperatures will jump - as they have in the past.
The only observation that would seriously challenge our understanding of anthropogenic global warming would be to see a sustained cooling phase, both surface and ocean, which would indicate that the previous rises were merely part of a larger natural cycle. However, no such cooling has been seen - the opposite is expected, given our calculations of the greenhouse effect.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
We really don't care much what the temperature was 300M years ago - we care what it is now, while we're here to experience it. And particularly, we care when it changes suddenly and drastically.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development
This is only assumed to be true, and only if fossil fuels are your sole source of energy. Investment in other sources of energy creates economic development in itself, as well decoupling this assumption.
it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.
Luckily we have many thousands of informed individuals in dozens of countries who have studied the matter in depth, and they're telling us very clearly that there is more than enough certainty to warrant reforming our energy sector.
If you don't feel there's enough to go on, perhaps the problem is that you don't have all the information?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Luckily, the detailed impact of natural ocean cycles like this one (and ENSO, PDO, AMO etc) is not required to be known.
Because they are cyclical, any contributions they make to surface temperatures are by their nature temporary; at the other end of the cycle, the process and temperature contributions are reversed, and the net impact is zero. For the purposes of long-term forecasting, short-term natural cycles are irrelevant.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.
If you can't model climate over 10 years, you can't model it over 100. No reliable advance predictor of ENSO is known. Now they're saying there is a longer-term trend that they can't predict, either. At least so far. Which throws an even bigger wrench into the works.
But what's really funny is how this definition of "long term" changes with the temperature! Not all that long ago, warmists were saying "A trend has to be 10-12 years before it can be called 'climate'." But once the "pause" -- I'm being polite -- was about 16 years long they started saying 20 years, and 30 years. It's hilarious.
This "pause" is one month away from being 18 years long... only 1 year shy of the entire warming trend since 1979, which is what everybody was screaming about in the first place.
Yes, I've seen the "evidence". Probably a lot more of it than you. But unlike most folks, I've seen the evidence on both sides of the aisle. The evidence for warming was never very convincing and has become less so as time has turned up new evidence.
Pardon me. For the sake of accuracy, I must add that it depends on what dataset you are looking at. It is somwhere between 13 1/2 years and 18 years.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.
The "theory" that says that ENSO has no long term effect is conservation of mass/energy.
I know you guys like to imagine that your vague hand-waving trumps basic science, but that's going a little far, don't you think?
I'm sorry, nothing you said was actually responsive to my point. The models didn't make any claims about ocean temperatures increasing. They specifically predicted surface temperatures continuing to increase. They were wrong in a single unified direction. Ocean warming is an attempt to explain why they were wrong in a single direction, but that doesn't make the models actually right. It's not just that they were wrong, but the consistency in the nature of their error. Since those predictions are the basis of the fears of catastrophic warming, their fears were based on an error. I stand by "overstated" but I would be willing to walk back "vastly" if ocean warming holds up as an explanation.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
It's completely fair to point out when someone tries to claim A is not equal to A', where A' is just a different wording of the same thing. I didn't say anything about whether the warming has actually stopped or slowed, only pointed out that he was trying to claim a distinction without a difference.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty
Feynman didn't mean that we could not use science to make predictions or decisions. Quite the opposite. He meant that scientists are equipped to deal with uncertainty. Science is a great tool in spite of the uncertainty.
Our understanding of the climate is vast, yet there is uncertainty. That is not a scary word to scientists - even though it may be for laymen. We can still use science to evaluate the true cost of burning fossil fuels and make intelligent decisions based on that.
I'm being pernicious? I'm asking for names of people who have received the treatment you claimed above. You are claiming that climate scientists are acting thoroughly unprofessionally. I want evidence. I'm not going to join in the two-minute hate blindly.
Freeman Dyson's career was never under threat by climate scientists. He says he was strongly criticized, and did seem to think climate scientists were being overly dogmatic. However, when he got involved, he made some serious errors of fact on his claims, and that may have contributed to any rejection.
Nate Silver? There isn't any mention of climate science in his Wikipedia article, and no sign of any disruption of his career. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it normally catches the significant stuff.
I found the name I was last given, Lennart Bengtsson. He seems to have a series of important scientific positions, and recently stirred up some controversy over a paper the reviewers of a particular journal didn't like.
So, in a quick survey, we find that Dyson thinks climate scientists don't welcome inquiry enough. This is certainly possible, although I'd like to get opinions from somebody who doesn't show up, act dismissive, and make erroneous statements.
Among the names I've been given, I see no apparent career disruption. Got quotes from climate scientists calling any of these people a "denier"? (I don't call skeptics deniers. I call people whose mind has been made up, and claim that any evidence to the contrary is manufactured by a giant conspiracy, deniers.)
I'll give you another shot. My meta-theory of AGW is that climate scientists are mostly honest and good scientists, and that the issue has been distorted by political activists, most perniciously by the fossil fuels industries. So far, what I've seen is consistent with that meta-theory. Got any good evidence against that theory?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc
Read the history of this whole 'hiatus' thing above. In a nutshell, there is no hiatus. There is a slow down in the growth of temperature. But it was still going up on average. Some scientists made statements like, "we are not sure why the rate of temperature increase has slowed down", and some bad science reporters wrote headlines like, "The planet is no longer warming, and scientists are baffled!!!!".
With that out of the way, the fact that some scientists are saying that there is no actual "Hiatus"
Yeah, some scientists, after the bad headlines from bad science reporters came out, said "No, no, no, the reporting is wrong. We never said the planet stopped warming, we said the rate of warming slowed."
Since you had a very major reading comprehension clanger when you decided to jump on this thread unasked to put me in my place I really cannot see how you can continue to pretend that your advice is of any value, so what's the deal here? Personal ego boosting? Fair enough, I will concede that you are vastly superior at mass debating, however I do not wish to witness you mass debating all over my posts when it's not remotely relevant to what I have written.
I agree with your post, I brought it up mainly because someone said that we know something with certainty, my post was to remind people that we don't really know anything 100% and to always leave room for doubt, nothing more.
I think you're missing my point too. The models are only inaccurate temporarily. They're still quite valid for predicting longer-term trends.
The reason for this is because of the cyclic nature of the ocean warming. ENSO, AMO, PDO etc are all natural cycles that shift heat between the ocean and surface. While heat is being transferred to the ocean (as currently), the models will over-predict surface temperatures. When the cycle reverses, heat is transferred from the ocean back to the surface - and the models will under-predict surface temperatures.
Because heat isn't created or destroyed, only moved around, the net effect of these cycles is zero, and does not affect the longer-term warming trend that the models show. If you take a longer-term running average of surface temperatures, they still come very close to the models' predictions.
Climate scientists already know that the models won't match the short-term noise created by these currently-unpredictable cycles - but that's OK, because they're not intended to. It's only uninformed laymen that insist that any short-term mismatch is a "failure" of the models, rather than simply using them for longer-term predictions only, as designed.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The "theory" that says that ENSO has no long term effect is conservation of mass/energy.
No, it isn't. You can't take one and conflate it with the other without something connecting them.
This recent theory says heat is stored in the deep oceans. I purely cyclical ENSO would have no effect, but this paper is claiming that the deep storage DOES have an effect on climate.
In essence, if there is any INCREASE or DECREASE in total stored energy, it does have an effect, even if it is cyclical in nature. It only has "no effect" when the entire energy budget remains the same.
By arguing that it has no effect, you are arguing that the paper this whole discussion about is also of no consequence.
Nate Silver's website (five thirty eight) published an article from an AGW supporter who wanted to put statistical context on the claims of fiscal damages resulting from effects which are purported to result from AGW. The article basically came said something along the lines of "there is more stuff around so there is more stuff that gets destroyed so fiscal measurements need to be correlated to the increases in present value." Mann came out blasting saying that the article didn't account for 4 variables. But the author of the article already published previous papers which did account for these variables. This followed by Silver himself getting attacked for his previous (quality) research and various concerted efforts to smear his name. He ended up commissioning (!!!!) a rebuttal to the article his website published because of the flurry of attacks in his direction.
Oh, and since you really don't see that the effort is concerted, I guess you are tone deaf. Nice try with the conspiracy claim, btw. But if this rises to the level of conspiracy theory, you can make the same claim of any political campaign. It's coordinated spread of a message. It's not really done in secret, so it doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy. They are pretty obvious (not to you because we already established that you are blindsided on this issue).
Dyson was not wrong on facts. He did ask relevant questions, but most importantly he suggest the obvious solution to release of carbon which would mean that the whole topic is irrelevant (because if the problem exists it would be easily fixable). His career could not be threatened because he is a revered figure. But he has been marginalized ever since. The moment the AGW people tried as much as question Dyson (and every single one of the so-called climate "scientists" could not hold a candle to Dyson's level of achievement), the whole movement became questionable. Attacking him was the straw that broke the camel's back. The AGW became a religion when they did that.
Not going to respond to blabber about fossil fuels industry. Of course, they would be the only ones sponsoring this research. Governments would not issue grants to study something which undermines their claims of need for more taxes. This is like arguing that marijuana is dangerous because no study shows otherwise (because anyone trying to attempt such a study would have their funding pulled). This is why I didn't want to have this argument. All these points have been beaten to death. And yet you keep repeating arguments which have been refuted long ago. So what incentive do I have to keep doing this? You think YOUR claims are somehow more superior than every other religious nut's? I don't.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Btw, very few religious fanatics realize that they are fanatics. But the outsiders can tell right away. No scientific theory (no, even the theory of evolution) inspires its supporters to get nasty. And yet AGW does. I know, you have very, very good reasons (frustration at this and that) and I am being dismissive and patronizing and such... But you can't separate a religion from its followers. And AGW camp operates as a religion. They most definitely do NOT follow the scientific method. So they are not scientists. They most definitely do make visceral attacks against those who question them.
I suppose nature abhors a vacuum. And when we created a state in which religion was separated from the state, a new type of belief system had to be invented to justify ever-increasing powers of the state. I am not saying it was planned. Only that nature abhors a vacuum and the institutional marriage of church and state has always been a part of the power structures and of the human condition.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Got quotes from climate scientists calling any of these people a "denier"?
3rd reply to the same post, but here it is from Mann himself (when talking about Nate Silver):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That was sarcasm... But I get it. Tone is hard to get through text. It DOES seem to be what every corp is doing. I personally like the civilization that my taxes buy.
You think people are making money from the idea that humans are causing global warming? All those scientists flush with Fat Cash, right? All those really influential people like.... who again?
And ... you... don't see the people making Fat Cash from ignoring the idea that humans are causing global warming? All those rich oil dudes... Nothing?
How does that WORK?
idk like Elon? his cars are great, but he has benefitted from a lot of public interest and government funding because people see electric cars as an alternative to AGW-causing petroleum. That's just one example.
The problem with climatologists is that they are climatologists; they are not sociologists, politicians, economists, or ethicists. Anybody who advocates following the advice of climatologists on climate change is either a charlatan or a liar.
They don't need to get past that, because whether it is actually warming or not has no impact on policy. Under all IPCC scenarios, there is no need in any government-initiated policies against climate change.
The reason we didn't talk about policy 20 years ago was because it was easiest to put a stop to this nonsense by pointing out that scientists didn't even have good data (actually, they still don't in terms of extrapolation).
But the policy issues are the same: the reason nothing can be done about climate change is rooted in economics and politics. And the reason nothing should be done is because whatever we could do is likely going to end up worse for humanity than simply living with warmer termperatures.
WTF? Conspiracy theory?
The Eliza "AI" program of the 1990s showed more apparent intelligent life than you are demonstrating here. At least it tried to appear to be relevant by quoting strings back at people instead of being totally random.
So - answer the question - why did you jump onto my post and give me a lecture without even reading my post? I'm not going to let such attempted petty bullying stand, it's peices of shit like you that give us all a bad name.
No I most definitely did not. You've probably got me mixed up with someone else you are trolling.
Come on now A.D.D. boy - answer the question. Why the lecture? Why do others have to be at a higher standard than you are demonstrating yourself?
"Civlisation - I buy it with my taxes!" Or some failry similar quote. There used to bwe a regular on here who used it in his signature. I can't remember if it was a Robert Heinlein or Thomas Paine quote, but it was someone who you wouldn't normally expect such thoughts from.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Read that one :)
However I think it's time for you to stop using your daddies slashdot account for your mindless trolling.
... the fact that [1]some scientists are saying that there is no actual "Hiatus" and producing numbers to back up there claims while [2]others are examining the temperature data and looking for new systems and processes that explain the changes they are seeing worries me. It tells me that some in the scientific community have abandon the scientific method and are attempting to make the data fit the hypothesis they have.
First off, the two statements you make ([1] & [2]) are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure you meant them to appear so, but phrasing it as you did tends to imply a contradiction between 'two schools of thought'. Both can be, and probably are, correct.
Secondly, this doesn't strike me as an abandonment of the scientific method, more a misunderstanding of the situation on your part, one I'd like to correct. (If, on the other hand, I'm misunderstanding the origins of your concerns please accept a preemptive apology, and consider this a request for some clarification of the why you are concerned.)
I'll to preface my explanation with a simplistic summary: Radiative Energy from the Sun >>>-->>> The Earth >>>-->> Re-radiated Energy from the Earth. From measurements taken, at various elevations on the earth's surface as well as in the atmosphere and in space from various satellites, we have determined that there is a difference between the energy coming in and the energy going out. More is coming in. According to our understanding of physics this should cause terrestrial temperatures to rise. Because we think we have a pretty good idea of the raw numbers involved (energy in / energy out), and the basic physics (conservation of energy) we thus expect the rise in temperature to lie within a certain range. Unfortunately, this is not what we have seen. In fact the increase in temperatures has been lower than we expected, and thus we have to ask ourselves: "What have we missed?"
One crucial point to note here is that asking this question, is almost the very definition of definition of science, not, as you seem to suggest, an abandonment of the scientific process.
Possible answers to the question include such things as: Our understanding of the basic physics is wrong (extremely unlikely); Our instrument data, all our measurements of radiation / re-radiation are wrong (unlikely to be out by significant amounts); Our understanding of where the excess energy is being stored is wrong (likely).
Given the possibles (and yes, I'll freely admit there may be others - maybe it's not just my summary which is simplistic) it makes sense to go looking for "new systems and processes that explain the change". In what way is this not science?
Ether way you look at it, the discovery of a new process within the chaotic system of the atmosphere simply adds more data to the mix and allows us to better understand the processes.
Agreed! Well, other than being slightly unsure how mid- to deep oceanic currents count as the atmosphere. :P
The problem with climatologists is that they are climatologists; they are not sociologists, politicians, economists, or ethicists. Anybody who advocates following the advice of climatologists on climate change is either a charlatan or a liar.
The problem with sociologists, politicians, economists, or ethicists is that they know nothing about climate change. Therefore, anyone following *their* advice about climate change is an idiot. I guess we just throw darts at a board, because everyone qualified to know the subject matter of anything doesn't know how to use it, and everyone who knows how to use the subject matter knowledge doesn't possess any of it. Given a choice, I will go back to the world of lying charlatans, and you can go back to the world of living in a cave waiting for lightning to strike a tree and make the hot glowy.
Let me explain how this works. Climatologists look at natural phenomena and make predictions about what the climate in the future might look like given various actions; that's the entirety of their expertise. It's not rocket science for them to communicate this either. Economists, sociologists, politicians, and ethicists then look at those options and make choices. It's like a restaurant: the chef gives you a menu of choices, but he doesn't get to tell you what to eat.
Well, yes, it's obvious that you're an idiot.
Well, I chose 1999 since this was the year referenced in the article. You didn't mention it, but you have also changed the data set to one without global coverage. You have also picked an old version of that data set that had even worse coverage than it does now! As it turns out, much of the heat over the last decade has accumulated in the the gaps of the HADCRU3 data set. So what you have done is shown that if you ignore the heat --> cooling!
Here is the trend from 2001 using a data set with near global coverate: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Curiously, the satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy at UAH shows an even greater trend after 1999 - so according to the satellite data warming has actually accelerated! http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
What we've got is a steady but slow upward trend with a noisy natural variability wave transposed on top of it. Most of this natural variability is caused by the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and the ocean. When the ocean absorbs energy (La Nina) the atmospheric temperatures drop below the trend. They jump above the trend when the ocean releases energy into the atmosphere (El Nino). If you pick a sufficiently short time span you could find many periods of cooling (even in a data set with global coverage) just by playing these humps and valleys. This doesn't really show anything useful though.