backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Apr 17 at 12:21 PM

Critics seize on cooling; warming theorist say models may need "readjusting"

You may have noticed it's been a rather cool North American spring.  The cool trend is not an isolated incident.  Overall, over the last decade temperatures have leveled off.  The climate shift has critics of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) theory crowing and has proponents of the computer model-based theory racing to readjust their predictions.

I. Critics: Global Warming has Gone AWOL

Former Californian meteorologist Anthony Watts, a top warming "skeptic", reports:

While the majority of “journalists” are still awakening from their intellectual slumber regarding climate science, the latest empirical global temperature measurements (RSS atmosphere temps and CO2 chart on the left) confirm... global warming has gone AWOL and a slight cooling trend has developed over the last 10 years (a minus 0.42 degrees by 2100 if the trend persists).

This warming hiatus happened despite the loud and hysterical shrieking by the climate scientists on the public dole that current CO2 emissions would cause rapid, unequivocal, irrefutable accelerated warming.

polar bear
[Image Source: Free Republic]

And Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com adds in a Fox News interview:

The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable.  In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet.

In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull.  In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming.

Even more mainstream publications are joining in.  The Economist comments:

It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

A March Gallup survey showed that today 58 percent of Americans remain worried about warming, up slightly from the 51 percent in 2011.  But that's down from the 62-72 percent response levels seen between 1999 and 2001, an era rife with strongly worded predictions of global catastrophe.  

Global Warming

The same study also showed an increasing number of Americans believe the media is exaggerating warming impact.

II. AGW Advocates Fight Back

Meanwhile, climate researchers who spent millions in government grant money to author studies on warming -- many of which predicted doomsday scenarios -- are back to the drawing board, refusing to admit defeat.

One key global warming "evangelist" -- James Hansen -- retired from his post as head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a top National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) research center, in April 2013.  Now working as an adjunct professor at Columbia University, the climatologist earlier this year he acknowledged warming had flatlined, "The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade."

James Hansen
AGW evangelist James Hansen, shown here arrested during a protest, retired this month.
[Image Source: Tar Sands Action]

But in the same "research note" [PDF] he argued that the public shouldn't just look at the numbers, but look at more nebulous and abstract observations, which he sees as supporting his beliefs of runaway warming.  He writes, "The observant person who is willing to look at the past over several seasons and several years, should notice that the frequency of unusual warm anomalies has increased and the extreme anomalies."

Such hopeful sentiments are echoed by other AGW advocates.  Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, seeming suggests that the body of climatologists supporting AGW theory is alone enough to prove global warming in the absence of other evidence.

He comments to Fox News:

This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before.  What's compelling about the climate science is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring.

Actice researchers are attempting to develop new models, explaining why the Earth cooled, even as greenhouse gas levels continued to rise.  A November 2012 study [abstract] published in climatology's top journal, Nature Climate Change, suggests that the ocean absorbed more heat than expected, dampening warming effects.

Ocean Warming
A recent study suggests oceanic dampening has slowed warming.
[Image Source: Deposit Photos]

Another study [abstract] in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that surface station data may have skewed warming predictions high.  While it predicts ongoing warming with rising greenhouse gas levels, it showed that other forms of compiled data predicted a slower, milder warming trend.

The big question is whether climate figures like Al Gore, who literally became billionaires on the back of policies like "carbon credits", can sustain the push for massive spending to "fight" warming.  Such approaches have yet to approve effective in halting global CO2 output; yet that hasn't stopped AGW advocates from suggesting everything from bans on meat to spending over $9T USD to combat warming in recent years.

Sources: The Economist, Watts Up With That, Fox News, James Hansen



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 8:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Reading only the title, sums up a whole lot of the global warming thing to me... LOL. Classic.

I do think we need to do better and get off of oil for 4 reasons.
1st. Economical - We shouldn't need to be dependent on other countries for oil and oil prices rising shouldn't have such control of our economy
2nd. Political - We don't need to be poking around in the middle east making enemies and making existing enemies more combatant. Let's just get out, give them their desert. See ya! Go back to hating on yourselves and your neighbors as you have since the dawn of civilization... We are outta here.
3rd. Environment [Pullution] - The thick murky smog belt over our major cities cant possibly be good to breath.
4th. Environment [long term effects] - possible warming, and other potentially dangerous, yet unknown effects.




RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By maugrimtr on 4/11/2013 10:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
Here's the problem though, a short term trend cannot alter a long term trend unless it itself becomes a sustained long term trend. That just hasn't happened yet. Worse, if we assume part of it is heat absorption, then we have a problem - eventually the absorbing material will reach a limit. The oceans are immense, not infinite.

What's worrying is how stalled warming is being called a "cooling trend" when no such trend has been evidenced. The Cooling Trend is a myth, a fabrication, a lie. Pick another random place on Earth and the locals will complain about sustained dry seasons and drought. Pick another, and they'll complain about there being too much rain. Local weather is never indicative of global climate trends.

If you're worried about your entirely local cold Spring in one particular year (it's been snowing in March across Europe too), then calm down. The climate is not cooling. There's just been some highly unusual high altitude changes to air currents which have let the polar/temperate divide (the Jet Stream) drift south far more than is usual. A possible cause is the loss of Arctic sea ice. A continent's worth of ice vanishing is bound to have climate effects...


By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree, that is why I put it 4th of 4... There are much bigger and better reasons to get the hell off oil than the climate. Economically, politically, and air quality(ically) are plenty reason enough. ;)


By Dr of crap on 4/11/2013 12:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm,
Your "4th" was basically saying that you think we should get off oil to stop warming, which in your first sentence you point at being a fallacy????????


By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 5:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. The science isnt proven and what I said was " possible warming, and other potentially dangerous, yet unknown effects."


By Cypherdude1 on 4/12/2013 3:15:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The big question is whether climate figures like Al Gore, who literally became billionaires on the back of policies like "carbon credits", can sustain the push for massive spending to "fight" warming.

Al Gore did not become a billionaire "on the back of policies like carbon credits." Furthermore, Al Gore is not a billionaire. Al Gore made his money by selling his Current TV network to the Arabic Al Jazeera network. Al Gore is only worth $300 million. He'll have to slum it when it goes to the Ritz or other luxury hotels:
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicia...


By Mint on 4/17/2013 12:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo.

AGW is real, but it's small potatoes. Using the IPCC's own numbers, current costs of going to wind/solar amount to spending trillions to prevent each hundredth of a degree of warming.

From a humanitarian viewpoint, spending towards preventing AGW is a criminal waste of global goodwill compared to third world development.

My support of EVs has nothing to do with AGW and everything to do with air pollution.


RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By tng on 4/11/2013 11:24:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pick another random place on Earth and the locals will complain about sustained dry seasons
Also called a micro-climate and local conditions are not a good indicator of global climate.

Let us face it, the Earth has been warming slowly for hundreds of years. The American Southwest is dotted with thousands of dry lake beds (Area 51 anybody?) that were filled less than 300 years ago. During the gold rush days in California, gold was brought from the Sierras on paddle boats across some of these lakes, 150 years later they are dry. What humans have done may or may have helped or hurt, but there is just not enough evidence either way.


By Ammohunt on 4/11/2013 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
You are really going to blame irrigation and water consumption changes on global warming? Man! lies and damn lies.


By ironargonaut on 4/11/2013 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 5
The slight cooling trend is derived from global data sets created by climate scientist so the strawman about local climate is irrelevant. Unless of coures you were refering to Hansen's pointing out "extremes" i.e. local climate variances as a trend of global weather. Amazing how cold spells are not a sign of AGW but hot ones are not. Of course now they say both are.

Also, note that many years ago climate scientists including Hansen were asked how many years would there have to be of no warming to refute the claim of runaway global warming. For several of those scientist that time period has passed, including for Hansen.

Out of curiosity how come when the jet stream changes and it gets cooler it is no big deal, but when the jet stream changes and it gets warmer it is a sign of global warming. I don't recall having ever read a press release for any of the AGW crowd saying the temps have increased but it is only due to the jet stream shift.
Hansen said climate warming was runaway and would override all natural variability if CO2 wasn't reduced, it hasn't and to now say natural variablity is the reason is bunk.
If the oceans can somehow suck up more heat then they release through some unknown mechanism. Might it be possible that they released heat during the period it is claimed CO2 caused global warming. That knife cuts both ways.


By Dr of crap on 4/11/2013 12:57:28 PM , Rating: 3
Bravo, sir BRAVO!


By half_duplex on 4/15/2013 9:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
The pwning and teabagage of climatics.


By Mint on 4/17/2013 12:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
LOL "slight cooling trend"? Where? This article is just more cherry-picking nonsense. Why is 10 years the magical cutoff?

Recall that in 2008, skeptics did the same thing, saying that the planet was cooling for the last 10 years. There was a dip in 2008 temperatures that was explained by the temporarily low ENSO index, and it happened to be 10 years after the temporary 1998 peak. Voila, downwards slope.

I didn't see any 10-year trend arguments on DT in 2010 or 2011, because that would have been a strong upwards trendline. Inconvenient, huh.

Most of these fluctuations have already been accounted for:
http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-m...
That trendline is still holding strong, and several of those datasets are from satellites. You're fooling yourself if you think warming has flattened, slowed down, whatever. Skeptics have been repeatedly wrong when they say, "okay, now it's staying flat", each time adjusting upward the new flat level.

Your other claims are BS. The IPCC has never made any concrete claims about runaway, instead using stable feedback systems in all its models and projections, so don't create a strawman about that. There has never been one-sided arguents about cold/hot spells or jets streams or ocean currents or whatever. It's always been part of variability.

You know what's funny? I don't even believe in combating AGW. The benefits are tiny compared to the cost, and it's a losing battle against developing countries who are growing and yet still use a fraction of the CO2 per capita than the west. It would be a crime to either slow them down or make them waste money on solar/wind instead of addressing hunger/disease/infrastructure.

Still, I'm not going to perpetuate a falsehood due to that belief.


By ppardee on 4/11/2013 5:25:07 PM , Rating: 3
You hit the nail on the head! If your scope is too small, your data can lead you to false conclusions.

And that's the entire problem with the whole global warming scam. The scope is too small. Interglacial periods are measured in tens of thousands of years, not hundreds of years. We are drawing conclusions based on measurements of just over 100 years.

If you look at the long term data, the planet has been getting hotter for like 12,000 years. So why are we freaking out that it's still getting hotter over the last 100 years?


By shaidorsai on 4/13/2013 9:59:46 AM , Rating: 3
This argument only holds water if we live in a static bubble...we don't. People from all over the world alive 10,000 years ago would tell you that when they were alive places around the globe were getting drier/wetter colder/hotter. The earth is dynamic and has been changing since the day the planet first coalesced around the sun.

AGW proponents shifting the argument to "something" must be absorbing our missing heat is similar to a child stomping their feet and insisting they get their way.

A reasonable person would assume something was wrong with their understanding of the environment when presented with facts that don't jive with what they expected to happen.

But then AGW proponents are not exactly reasonable.


RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 10:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
never mind environmental problems. Smog is a serious health issue that probably affects millions of people.


By zozzlhandler on 4/11/2013 4:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
But... smog *is* an environmental issue...


By De1iriou5 on 4/11/2013 5:01:53 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, Smaug is a Dragon...


RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By ppardee on 4/11/2013 5:38:43 PM , Rating: 3
This is my problem with climate-changers. They take attention away from real issues. There are some serious problems that will directly affect people (and are actually happening). Air quality is terrible. Bees are disappearing. Weeds are becoming resistant to Round-Up (which affects food production) Auto-immune disorders are becoming the norm in children. Bacteria is becoming resistant to antibiotics. This generation is living such a unhealthy lifestyle that they are likely to be the first in a couple of centuries that won't outlive their parents.

And people are trying to control the weather.... Where are the priorities?

And it makes people forget what REAL environmental issues are. It makes them tune out. They hear 'environment' and think "Oh, they're talking about bogus climate change"


RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By Paj on 4/12/2013 8:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
Climate change is one of many environmental issues facing the world. You dont think droughts, floods, unusual freezing weather has a devastating effect on both the human and natural worlds?

The main point is this - the warming is still currently within the range predicted by our climate models, but the trend has slowed somewhat over a short term period. Doesn't mean its time for a tar sands party.


By shaidorsai on 4/13/2013 10:05:00 AM , Rating: 1
The point is floods, drought, freezing weather have always happened and always will. Do you never go outside ?

Essentially zero warming in 10 years does not fit into ANY warming model ever proposed by AGW proponents.


By Mint on 4/17/2013 12:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Essentially zero warming in 10 years does not fit into ANY warming model ever proposed by AGW proponents.
Given the El Nino patterns we've had? Yes, it does.

Want to explain why just 2-3 years ago the 10 year trend was very positive, and you skeptics remained silent on this bogus metric?


RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By wookie1 on 4/11/2013 5:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well then, since CO2 doesn't produce smog, it seems like all of the CAGW energy is working on the wrong problem! All those billions (or even trillions) of dollars are already wasted that could have done something about smog. I guess it helped keep some NGO's going, and some scientists were able to ride the gravy train, so it was all worth it.


RE: "Researchers Advise Panic Despite Flat Temps"
By superflex on 4/12/2013 2:44:37 PM , Rating: 3
Water vapor has been proven time and time again to be the number one contributor to rising planet temperatures.
The politicians couldn't get away with a water tax so CO2 was scapegoated.


By shaidorsai on 4/13/2013 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with your assertion around water vapor...but politicians have already figured out how to fleece more money from the public due to rain...storm runoff fee's.

I kid you not.


By wookie1 on 4/11/2013 5:28:03 PM , Rating: 3
You may not have noticed, but the US is on the verge of being (or may already be) a net exporter of oil - despite the current administrations attempts to block domestic oil production! That kills most of your arguments, and the others are basically "we don't know what may happen so we better stop using oil!" Not very strong.

Note that CO2 doesn't create smog, but does promote plant growth.


Both sides are right
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 10:21:49 AM , Rating: 3
Why can't people just admit that global warming is real but it's not as crazy as the loud people make it out to be. We need to treat our planet better and conserve our resources anyways. We shouldn't screw over future generations just because it's not as bad as we thought.

According to our geological history, we are supposed to cooling into another ice age. Maybe global warming is negating the cooling effects. Who knows, we don't really have any way to tell right now.




RE: Both sides are right
By Ammohunt on 4/11/2013 1:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Because this type of chicken little science affects more than just the earth environment! it affects global economies,standards of living for everyone at every economic level. We can't go half cocked with fixes when there isn't solid proof of what the claim is. Not to mention there are ideological agendas at work here as well. The environmentalist movement is compromised mostly of anti-capitalist Marxists. AGW is their weapon against what they feel is the greatest evil that being consumerism and hence free-market capitalism. Its the same folks that are involved with the current gun law debate which are about disarming citizens and not about public safety; these people are freedoms antagonists.


RE: Both sides are right
By Ringold on 4/11/2013 3:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the exact same people and exact same ideologies that the Marxist student groups of the 60s had. Now they just have gray hair.

In Europe, we even see some more honesty then here. In a couple countries the 'Greens' and Communist/Marxist parties have said, hey! We're almost 100% in agreement, why the hell are we splitting our vote? Lets merge! American Marxists are too savvy with PR to call themselves what they are, though. Hence the cloak-and-dagger maneuvers, the anti-intellectual assaults on GM food, nuclear power, even vaccinations. Some are targeted at weakening humanity and therefore having a smaller impact on sacred frog species, others at boosting the state. All goes together.


RE: Both sides are right
By Ammohunt on 4/11/2013 4:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Either way if these counter culture radicals get their way we go back to a pre-French revolution configuration with an Aristocratic leadership class(them) and the dirt poor(everyone else) acting as property of the state. "May you live in interesting times" indeed!


RE: Both sides are right
By Paj on 4/12/2013 8:28:40 AM , Rating: 2
Would love to hear your explanation for how refusing a vaccination has anything to do with Marxism.


RE: Both sides are right
By superflex on 4/11/2013 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
The internet called. It wants its geology degree back.

The peak of the last ice age was about 10,000 years ago. Since that point, the continental and alpine glaciers have been retreating.

The typical period between ice ages is 400,000 years due the Earths procession, eccentricity of orbit and axial tilt (Google Milankovitch cycle). Ice cores collected from Lake Vostok in Antarctica support this cycle.

Logic and geologic science tells anyone with a brain we should be warming and not cooling as the next ice age wont peak for another 390,000 years.

People will say anything to support an agenda.


RE: Both sides are right
By wookie1 on 4/11/2013 5:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
I was pretty sure that the glacial perdiods were on an approximately 100K year cycle for the last 800K years or so, about 10K years of interglacial and 90K years of ice. Also, since it's not understood exactly what causes the ice ages to start and end, I don't think anyone is really well-suited to make a prediction. Look how these predictions of CAGW have worked out!


RE: Both sides are right
By superflex on 4/12/2013 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. I mixed up the Milakovitch cycle length with the glacial period cycle.
Still, the Vostok ice core data is pretty solid proof of man having no influence over variations in temperature and CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_dat...


RE: Both sides are right
By superflex on 4/11/2013 3:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
The scary thing is, BRB29 works for the USGS (according to his post in the Jason's fracking blog) yet he fails to understand geologic history and astronomic science.


Solar Cycle 24
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/11/2013 10:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
From 2000-2003 we had well over 500 sunspots in a 4 year period as solar cycle 23 peaked out. It wasnt until well after that peak we had katrina and a peaking of the mass global warming hysteria.

Solar cycles are like seasons. There is a delay between the peak of the calendar season and the actual peak of the observed seasonal effects. For example here in northern US, summer starts technically in June and that is when we get maximum sunlight, but it is hotter in july. Same goes with winter, sunlight troughs on dec 21st but january is much more brutally cold than december.

With solar cycles it takes a few years after the peak of the cycle for the cycle's effects to peak here on earth, instead of just a few weeks with our seasons. Expect that to occur around 2017. We are still well in the trough of the effects of cycle 24, even though sunspot activity is near its projected peak for this cycle. Of course this is also a very weak cycle compared to the last one. We've only had less than 20% of the total sunspot activity compared to the years 2000-2003.




RE: Solar Cycle 24
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 2
The reason why it's hotter in july vs june is because of how much energy the earth gives up vs absorb per day.

while you get maximum energy from the sun in june and then it starts to decline, the earth is still receiving more energy than it receives per day.

Same thing applies in the winter except the inverse.

It's a simple addition and subtraction. You were supposed to learn this in High School Earth Science man.

Sunspots are not significant enough to cause changes in temperatures. We study sunspots to predict solar wind, or radiation because it has knocked out entire grids of power before. Imagine if that happens today, it would be catastrophic. All the people that would walk into walls because their phones are dead.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By FITCamaro on 4/11/2013 1:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's hotter in July vs June because we're closer to the sun in July.

You were supposed to learn this in high school earth science.

And more sun spots are the result of higher solar output and activity. More output = more heat.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By Just Tom on 4/11/2013 2:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's hotter in July vs June because we're closer to the sun in July.


No, sir, you are exactly wrong. The Earth is actually closest to the Sun in January. In July it is at maximum distance. The seasons are determined by the tilt of the planet not the distance from the Sun. If it was merely distance that mattered the Northern and Southern hemispheres would not have opposing seasons.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By superflex on 4/11/2013 3:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like somebody was sleeping during HS dirt science class.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By Paj on 4/12/2013 8:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ou were supposed to learn this in high school earth science.


A class you were evidently fast asleep in. Perihelion occurs in January, aphelion in July.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By Ringold on 4/11/2013 3:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Sunspots themselves aren't what some people think cause warming or cooling. It's their impact on allowing greater or fewer cosmic rays to reach Earth if I recall, which appears to impact cloud formation.

Tbh, I quit following the science side of the debate. All I do any more is take the worst-case scenario, make sure no legitimate economists have changed the prevailing idea that the cost of abatement far exceeds potential benefits (beyond very tiny measures), and then move on to other topics.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By Schrag4 on 4/12/2013 1:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sunspots are not significant enough to cause changes in temperatures. We study sunspots to predict solar wind, or radiation because it has knocked out entire grids of power before.


Honest question: Let's say you predict massive solar activity capable of knocking out "entire grids". What action do you take to prevent grids from going down? I suspect the answer is something along the lines of "Well, there's nothing we really can do except prepare for a catastrophe" but I'm no expert so I'd like to hear what you think.


RE: Solar Cycle 24
By JediJeb on 4/12/2013 4:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sunspots are not significant enough to cause changes in temperatures.


There is quite a good correlation between the extended long period of low sunspot numbers(the Maunder Minimum)and what is known as the 'Little Ice Age" that occurred in the early 1800's. Also of note is that the last solar minimum in 2009 was in the midst of one of the longest periods of no recorded sunspots ever and is also near the time when the global temperatures began to level off and even cool slightly. This year and next are supposed to be the maximum of this current solar cycle and yet this year we are at about half the number of sunspots as a typical maximum should have.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.htm...

http://www.spaceweather.com/

In that second link you will see that the coolest periods over the last couple hundred years, namely the early 1800s and early 1900 correspond to lower solar maximums while some of the hottest years such as the 1960 and 1990s correspond to some of the highest solar maximums.

Also for years Russian scientist have been saying there is a link between solar activity and global temperatures.

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes...

Maybe the Russians have something here. It isn't the popular belief, but then when have the Russians been worried about what is popular with the rest of the world.


That's all fine and great but...
By Manch on 4/11/2013 7:45:23 AM , Rating: 5
Jason you failed to address whether or not the polar bear made it to the other side.




RE: That's all fine and great but...
By bug77 on 4/11/2013 8:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
The models predict that he did. Or not.


RE: That's all fine and great but...
By morgan12x on 4/11/2013 9:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
Schrödinger's cat


By ppardee on 4/11/2013 5:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have paid a LOT more attention in physics class if it were Schrodinger's Polar Bear.


One Question that the Warmists Refuse to Answer...
By Arsynic on 4/11/2013 9:22:45 AM , Rating: 1
"How would we know that man made global warming is not happening?"




By ironargonaut on 4/11/2013 12:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
They did answer they said 15yrs of no rising temps. That has occurred now they are changing there tune.


By WilcoD on 4/11/2013 7:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Temperatures have been rising in the last 15 years: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagra...

According to figure 11/12 the temperature is actually rising faster in the last 30 years than it did before.


By WilcoD on 4/11/2013 7:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
We'd know 100% sure that global man-made warming is not happening if the global temperature returns to pre-industrial levels, if arctic ice no longer mostly disappears in the summer, if the sea levels decrease again, if the retreat of most glaciers is reversed, if ocean heat content decreases - all while CO2 concentration continues to increase.

None of these have actually been observed, so make your own conclusion from that.


By shaidorsai on 4/13/2013 10:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it could only be man made warming causing this...the earth never changed at all prior to human activity...


By WilcoD on 4/13/2013 8:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that climate changes over millions of years doesn't prove that mankind cannot alter it. It's like saying you cannot fell a tree because it appears way too strong for a human to push over.

We are emitting 100 times more CO2 per year than all vulcanoes combined. 30% of all atmospheric CO2 is man-made. If you want to argue that has no effect whatsoever then you have to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.


Stupid
By Flunk on 4/11/2013 8:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to post the same thing I would post if this were a article supporting the anthropogenic global warming.

Even 100 years a a short period of time when we're talking about global climate. The climate of the earth operates on a geologic time-frame. Year by year fluctuations are normal, as is the hurricane cycle and you can't take one or a few years as proof of anything. Everyone involved in this debate needs to relax, back down and take more readings and do more research instead of spending time arguing things that can't be proven at this point.

Don't take this as me claiming we don't need to take any action, because right now the overwhelming evidence points to carbon emissions as an important factor in global warming. We should definitely be curtailing carbon emissions, especially because of ocean acidification (something that could be more important than global warming).




RE: Stupid
By RufusM on 4/11/2013 10:59:29 AM , Rating: 1
But how would the researchers get massive funding dollars without a crisis?

Everyone in government knows a crisis is needed (real or imagined) to legitimize more funding dollars for <insert pet project here>.


RE: Stupid
By wookie1 on 4/11/2013 5:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but warming projection for 100 or more years from now are based on computer models that have already completely failed at only 15 years out. How can there be any confidence in the prediction capability far into the future then?


RE: Stupid
By WilcoD on 4/12/2013 5:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
If you mean with "completely failed" that the computer models have turned out to be too conservative and actual observed warming is higher than they predict, then yes they have "completely failed". But other than being a bit too conservative, even 30 year old simplistic models have turned out to be pretty damn accurate.


By WilcoD on 4/11/2013 8:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvReal...

You've got to be pretty deperate to make the false claim there has been no warming in the last 15 years when in reality the trend has been accelerating...




By superflex on 4/12/2013 2:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_dat...

15 years worth of data or 400,000 years worth of data?

The ball is in your court.


By WilcoD on 4/12/2013 5:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Those graphs show that CO2 and temperatures have a very strong relation over the last 400 thousand years. Also just 100ppm results in about 10 degrees temperature difference, and CO2 concentration has not gone above 300ppm in 400000 years, with about 280ppm being typical for the interglacial period we are currently in. Now our current level is 397ppm, so is it a surprise global temperatures are rising increasingly fast?


Isaiah 5:16
By hiscross on 4/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: Isaiah 5:16
By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 11:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously?

OMG man, grow up and get an education already.


RE: Isaiah 5:16
By hiscross on 4/11/2013 2:52:56 PM , Rating: 1
All 3 support global warming. Why worry?


RE: Isaiah 5:16
By retrospooty on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: Isaiah 5:16
By hiscross on 4/11/2013 8:19:53 PM , Rating: 3
I am a Christian. I make no excuses nor am I a shame of the that fact. As a free person I will use free speech to tell people the truth. If people don't like it or accept what I have to say so what. That will never stop me.


The climate is complex
By Ammohunt on 4/11/2013 11:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
More so then the arrogant climate scientists would admit. Not to help out the climate scientists but is it possible that the pollution generated from countries that are just now going through industrialization which consists of more than just CO2 including soot and other fun chemicals like sulfur dioxide which happen to be very reflective could in theory be contributing to minor cooling not unlike the age when homes were heated using coal by reflecting the suns energy back into space? Air pollution is the number one killer in China and smog from that country can be seen from space.




RE: The climate is complex
By Ringold on 4/11/2013 4:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
I come from the economics field, but if I tried to put forward a model that I cobbled together full of assumptions and notions I pull out of my tail end that generally, some times kinda tracks historical data and then never seems to accurately predict the future, I'd be laughed at.

Or immediately hired by Bank of America or as a climate scientist. One of those.


depending on which temp record you check...
By lenardo on 4/11/2013 1:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
the temperature "trend" has been flat for Longer than 10years..

there are what 4ish major temp charts ...
gis, hadcrut(v3 v4), rss and uah

gis the "trend" has been negligible(ie ZERO) for over 12 years
for Hadcrut, depending on the version

V3 the "trend" has been negligible(ie ZERO) for over 15 years
V4 the "trend" has been negligible(ie ZERO) for over 12 years

RSS the "trend" has been negligible(ie ZERO) for over 16 years

UAH (sat data) the "trend" has been negligible(ie ZERO) for over 5 years

no significant warming since:

RSS since September 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since August 1995 and
NOAA since June 1994.




By WilcoD on 4/11/2013 8:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
Are we even looking at the same data?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagra...

This shows the temperature is rising (figure 11 and 12), and the trend in the last 30 years is faster than ever.


Oldies, but goldies
By bug77 on 4/11/2013 7:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
oh...
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 4/11/2013 10:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
oh...so now that it's been cooling for 10 years they need to adjust their computer models. But when they thought it was warming and could blame people's activities to it, the models were golden.




Real reason polar bears are dying
By FITCamaro on 4/11/2013 1:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
Diving off one piece of ice and smacking their face on another piece of ice.




By drycrust3 on 4/11/2013 4:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and has proponents of the computer model-based theory racing to readjust their predictions.

This is a bigger problem than it first seems because the UK University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit was caught rigging over a hundred years of carefully complied raw data so as to make it look like global warming was real, and when it was pointed out that you shouldn't rig your raw data so it conforms to your favourite scientific theory, they said they hadn't done anything wrong, and in fact seemed very proud of doing this.
Now, when it is evident there is a problem with the existing computer models, the original raw data that is essential to the creation of better models no longer exists because they corrupted it, so there is no reliable foundation on which to build any better scientific model.




Shhhh
By TSS on 4/11/2013 5:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you listen closely, real closely, you can hear Al Gore's voice in the wind, laughing as he frolicks amongst his billions of carbon credit money.

I'm quite sure by now this time in history will later be known as "The time of Fools". As there's hardly anything else to describe the mass deslusions i've witnessed in my life so far.

And to think we're not even half way! There's plenty more to be revealed!




Kinda like The Daily Show
By deathwombat on 4/12/2013 11:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
This post reminds me of an episode of The Daily Show where a correspondent reported that Global Darkening was a fact because it had been getting darker for several hours.

Nothing big happens on a global scale in just a few years. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that there will be spikes and sags in any trend. To study the hypothesis that manmade CO2 emissions are affecting the global average temperature, you have to check the entire period since the Industrial Revolution for a longterm trend, then compare that trend with all of the preceding periods. In the short period of time that we've been keeping accurate records, we could have the coldest decade ever followed by the hottest decade ever, and the dryest decade ever followed by the wettest decade ever. Predicting future temperatures based on only a decade of data is like predicting that your next five children will be boys because your last child was a boy, or that the San Francisco Giants will win the next five World Series because they won the World Series last year. It's not enough time to establish a trend.




By CharonPDX on 4/12/2013 11:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't a news story, it isn't related to "tech". Jason, would you mind starting a new site, called "DailyOpinion" to spout your slanted drivel on?




By MZperX on 4/12/2013 12:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
... a financial "expert" trying to build a computer model to predict future stock prices.

Finance guru : My model takes into account thousands of variables. I've recorded the price movement of the stock of company XYZ over the past 5 minutes. Based on this data, which shows a clear uptrend, I can say with certainty that the stock price will keep moving up in the next 100 years.

Sounds ridiculous right? Take into consideration that stock prices are influenced by far fewer factors than global climate and you should start to appreciate the utter futility (even foolishness) of trying to predict future temperature trends over several millenia, based on about 100 years of actual measurements. The honest answer, that they will never admit, is that they simply don't know.




Daily Tech is GW denier central.
By ptmmac on 4/13/2013 11:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
The last time I bothered to read some of the anti global warming silliness found here, I was treated to the "the sun is the cause of all the extra heat we are dealing with. Now its "we are not warming. You just measured it wrong! The sun is the source of all the heat on earth. No one is denying that. The question is what evidence would show the difference between the solar radiation levels driving average temperature variation and heat retention driven by green house gasses trapping heat? The answer is where is the heat increasing. The answer to this is the troposphere rather than the ionosphere. This is exactly what you would expect if CO2 and Methane levels were trapping more heat in the earth. If the sun were added more radiation to the earth you would expect the ionosphere to be cooler and the troposphere to be warmer.




Simple science
By talikarni on 4/16/2013 1:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
I went to a school that ignored politicians forced agendas...

Science has proven the earth and plants automatically adapt to changing conditions to keep a fairly "average" range of temperatures. Even before man, if a volcano killed off large portions of plants around the world, it warmed up drastically for a while (maybe a few years, maybe a few millenia), but the new seedlings that sprout up grow faster and bigger until the CO2 and pollutants balance out again. If plants grow entirely too fast and suck up too much CO2, the planet cools killing off some excess plant life to balance it out.

When atmospheric CO2 and pollutants rises whether its from a volcano or really anything (aka warming trend), plants increase their intake meaning faster and healthier growth rates which balances out the CO2 after a few years.

When CO2 drops (cooling), plants growth slows down allowing more CO2 to stay in the atmosphere allowing it to warm back up.

This is why temperature charts show small jumps and declines over time. So really even if man has been adding loads of CO2 and pollutants to the atmosphere, the plants adapt automatically to help balance things out.




You lost me at...
By Kutcher on 4/11/2013 12:49:11 PM , Rating: 1
You lost me at : "in a Fox News interview".




Don't celebrate just yet
By Odysseus145 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: Don't celebrate just yet
By RazelDazel2 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: Don't celebrate just yet
By ironargonaut on 4/11/2013 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
The cooling is global and has nothing to due with snowstorms.
So, then a freezing icecap would cause global warming?

They also said 15yrs of no warming would be a sign CO2 was not the cause. They also said global warming form CO2 would override ALL natural variability. So, I guess this isn't science as they have said so many different things they could never be wrong. Therefore AGW can't be disproven, therefore according to scientific principal is not science. Cooling is warming, warming is warming, burning coal causes warming, unless it is cooling then it causes cooling(Hansen). Droughts are a sign of warming, blizzards are a sign of warming. Floods are a sign of warming. Do guys seriously hear yourselves?


RE: Don't celebrate just yet
By WilcoD on 4/11/2013 7:35:18 PM , Rating: 3
It has been warming in the last 15 years: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-gl...


RE: Don't celebrate just yet
By superflex on 4/11/2013 3:42:52 PM , Rating: 3
You've got to be kidding. That article is as poorly written as one of Jason's blogs.

Relying on 50 years of satellite data and less than 200 years of accurate climate record keeping data ignores the other 99.99999% of Earth's history.

Guess what Copernicus? We exited the last Ice age 10,000 years and and the next one wont peak for another 390,000 years. We should be warming, yet you claim it's all mans fault with your hack reference from a liberal rag.

You should add "opinion" to your link.


I don't care either way as long as things change
By mike66 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: I don't care either way as long as things change
By Manch on 4/11/2013 9:36:24 AM , Rating: 2
How did removing lead from gas reduce violent crime? Can you post links? I really want to know how they came to that conclusion.


By Dr of crap on 4/11/2013 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Really you need links?

Of course stupid also makes you want links!
Lead makes you stupid, stupid makes you do drugs, and crime.

Not much of a leap.

Of course stupid also makes you want links! HA!


By Manch on 4/12/2013 3:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
And how much lead paint did you eat to make you an annoying troll?


By Just Tom on 4/11/2013 2:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
The link between lead exposure in children and crime is fairly well established. I understand if you haven't read about it because it really has not been talked about much by the popular press.

If you want you can do your own research to find primary sources, but this WaPo article is not bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...


By Manch on 4/12/2013 3:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
Cool thanks! Yeah, I had never heard that.


By freeagle on 4/11/2013 9:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
lead taken out of fuel has reduced violent crime by 30% in some cities in the world


You began to lose me here by not providing any links to these claims,

quote:
recycling there waste


but you really lost me there . It's their waste. Link provided to back my claim - http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They'r...


By Dorkyman on 4/11/2013 10:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think I'm gonna puke if I hear another mention of the word "planet." Ohhh, we're so IN TOUCH with Mother Gaia, and I'm so darn proud of myself for being "sensitive" to her needs.

Hey, pal, suggest you rejoin the rest of us and realize that getting rid of all our coal plants in the USA will change the net temperature 20 years hence by something like 0.0001 degrees.

Oh yeah, so worth it.


By Dorkyman on 4/11/2013 10:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and Jason, love the title. Accurate and succinct.


By freeagle on 4/11/2013 10:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
getting rid of all our coal plants in the USA will change the net temperature 20 years hence by something like 0.0001 degrees


Any source?


By Skywalker123 on 4/11/2013 1:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think I'm gonna puke if I hear another mention of the word "planet." Ohhh, we're so IN TOUCH with Mother Gaia, and I'm so darn proud of myself for being "sensitive" to her needs.


Why dont u try living without "Mother Gaia"? You need her more than she needs you!


By ClownPuncher on 4/11/2013 2:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wong. She doesn't have a job. Who do you think pays the bills?


RE: I don't care either way as long as things change
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 10:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
What is the correlation between lead in gasoline and crime?
Please show data.


By GatoRat on 4/11/2013 2:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a pretty good synopsis of the theory:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lea...

What this has to do with AGW is beyond me.


By superflex on 4/11/2013 5:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
Mother Jones has no agenda at all. "cough, liberal rag, cough"


By Yojimbo on 4/11/2013 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 1
What does lead have to do with carbon dioxide? I find it hard to believe that the billions of dollars spent and the damage to the image of scientific professionals in the mind of the public can easily be thought as providing a commensurate amount of "good." But don't break into philosophical lament, yet. This thing is far from over. A model does not have to be abandoned completely just because of a round of mispredictions. It is very much possible the model is fundamentally correct, but needs to be refined.


By spamreader1 on 4/11/2013 11:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


By superflex on 4/11/2013 5:36:35 PM , Rating: 1
Do you have proof for that conjecture that lead causes violence and since the removal of lead from our gasoline, violence has reduced by 30%?
Go back to reading the back of cereal boxes.


By ppardee on 4/11/2013 5:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, look. CO2 increases, temperature increase. It's very clear. You can look at ice cores. We take lead out of gasoline and crime decreases. You can look at crime stats from 1970 to present. As cars became unable to use leaded gasoline, violent crime dropped. Well... Except for in the early 90s, but that was just a fluke like today's flat-lining temps.

Clearly, correlation = causation.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki