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!
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.
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."
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.
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
I use ethanol ice (-114 C), you insensitive clod.
(And before you get pedantic, what else might you be drinking which is liquid at -12C?)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
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 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 "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.
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.
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"?
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."
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
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.
>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/...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
30 years equals one generation, so the previous one forgets the failures of the current one and falls for the scam yet again.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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 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
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.
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