Climate Science Is Not Settled

[Paratus]

as usual you fail to understand basic science.

Climate does not pause, it is in a constant state of change.

Climate is sensitive to CO2 also.

But you know that. You are just being...facetious?? /sarcasm

If I remember correctly, an El Nino event releases heat into the atmosphere, sometimes very large amounts that will tend to raise temperatures. Oh wait, you know that too don't you.

It's not my claim that the climate paused. And yes that was a sarcastic comment. Sorry I didn't use tags. :sneaky:

The reasons for the climate changing are natural or man-made and both are knowable and subject to the scientific method.

You should know that.

You should also know that the heat released by El Niño is heat stored in the ocean from the Sun. Since the last El Niño in 98 the Earth should have been cooling as the ocean absorbed more heat. It didn't we've warmed slowly the entire time.

So what do you think is going to happen now?

Now we'll be getting an El Niño and the air temperature will ratchet up faster.


The suns output hasn't suddenly changed, the composition of the atmosphere doesnt have any mysterious changes year to year. We know what gases are being put into the air by our activities.

These constant arguments that it isn't happening, it's happening but it's not our fault, it's somewhat our fault but it's not even that bad are all based on willful ignorance of the current state of climate research.

It also detracts from where debate, scientific and politcal, should be happening; what to do about it.

 

[glenn1]

It also detracts from where debate, scientific and politcal, should be happening; what to do about it.

That's already been decided over the last 30 plus years - basically nothing. Even those like you who are concerned about global warming aren't willing to undertake anything which would make a whit of difference. Your side can't even get its act together to decide whether the poor should share in the pointless sacrifice you propose for the rest of us.

 

[Paratus]

That's already been decided over the last 30 plus years - basically nothing. Even those like you who are concerned about global warming aren't willing to undertake anything which would make a whit of difference. Your side can't even get its act together to decide whether the poor should share in the pointless sacrifice you propose for the rest of us.

Do you have some links to backup these assertions?

As for "my side", I on the side of sound policy backed up by science and facts. Your side has managed to grind to a halt Kyoto, cap and trade, and even allowing the Pentagon to assess the national security implications for climate change.

Basically glenn1 burning fossil fuels has cost associated with the waste. It's been great for industry that the cost of that waste has been externalized for you and I and the rest of us to pay, but it looks like the gravy train needs to end.

It doesn't have to end with huge wealth transfers though. I've already posted my thoughts on a solution that looks more like a business opportunity for the U.S.

 

[OverVolt]

So I heard only 4 of the 18 climate models correctly predicted the pause (but still overshot anyway) and they had 30 different theories why 14 models completely missed the mark. I heard IPCC 2007 predictions were completely wrong.

What paratus talks about "Oh the heat went into the Ocean" is only 1 of the 30 different theories on where the heat could have gone (they don't know for sure).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/

That article sums up nicely how I feel about the climate models. Its fun watching IPCC have to put their foot in their mouth the worse and worse their models become over time.

It’s important to remember that computer models and scenarios are not evidence—and that validation does not consist of adding up IPCC opinion votes. Such an approach can only be detrimental to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Validation requires comparing predictions to actual observations, and yes, the IPCC models have failed in that regard. For example, while human CO2 emissions have continued to grow over the past 17 years now, there has been no trend in global temperatures. The IPCC’s computer models failed to predict this.

The freaking irony of the "oh its all about the facts and science"

Why do the global warming guys even feel entitled to still talk on the subject with authority?

Nature hasn't been publishing many papers on climate change as of late because the subject is now a pariah.

Other than the models what basis do you guys have to be sounding the alarm on climate? The models are wrong anyway. So why are you guys talking.

 

[Jaskalas]

NASA: Earth Just Experienced the Warmest Six Months Ever Recorded

So if the Climate is paused and insensitive to CO2 some one may want to inform Mother Nature.

And look at the Pacific. Massive warm anomaly in the NE corner, PDO has been positive this year... and an El Nino forming. That's how the ocean releases heat into the atmosphere.

The bigger question is where it goes from here, after the weather clears. If we're no higher than the 2000s average, the pause continues.

 

[Paratus]

So I heard only 4 of the 18 climate models correctly predicted the pause (but still overshot anyway) and they had 30 different theories why 14 models completely missed the mark. I heard IPCC 2007 predictions were completely wrong.

What paratus talks about "Oh the heat went into the Ocean" is only 1 of the 30 different theories on where the heat could have gone (they don't know for sure).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/

That article sums up nicely how I feel about the climate models. Its fun watching IPCC have to put their foot in their mouth the worse and worse their models become over time.



The freaking irony of the "oh its all about the facts and science"

Why do the global warming guys even feel entitled to still talk on the subject with authority?

Nature hasn't been publishing many papers on climate change as of late because the subject is now a pariah.

Other than the models what basis do you guys have to be sounding the alarm on climate? The models are wrong anyway. So why are you guys talking.

Well somebody actually has to talk facts here. We all can't get our facts from opinions published in financial journals.

Conservation of energy? What's that? Sounds like a hippy liberal movement.

But since you claim to have the facts, how about links to the 30 other theories on where the heat went.........

 

[OverVolt]

Well somebody actually has to talk facts here. We all can't get our facts from opinions published in financial journals.

Conservation of energy? What's that? Sounds like a hippy liberal movement.

But since you claim to have the facts, how about links to the 30 other theories on where the heat went.........

Uhhhhh just look at the sources on the wiki I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Could not have tried to come up with a funnier stab in the dark than the one below.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

One of the most significant but least understood sources of aerosols are the sweet-smelling vapours found in pine forests in North America, northern Europe and Russia.

These aerosols have confounded climate models as scientists haven't been able to accurately predict how many of the particles form.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh smell dat pine sol. The fresh scent of pine trees has a significant impact on climate change

Doesn't seem very hard to confound a climate scientist.

 

[xBiffx]

-snip-

It’s important to remember that computer models and scenarios are not evidence—and that validation does not consist of adding up IPCC opinion votes. Such an approach can only be detrimental to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Validation requires comparing predictions to actual observations, and yes, the IPCC models have failed in that regard. For example, while human CO2 emissions have continued to grow over the past 17 years now, there has been no trend in global temperatures. The IPCC’s computer models failed to predict this.

Thanks for posting that. Pretty much says exactly what I posted twice. This describes exactly why this whole argument is a giant counterfactual. That quote is pretty much the definition of one.

 

[Paratus]

Uhhhhh just look at the sources on the wiki I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Could not have tried to come up with a funnier stab in the dark than the one below.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh smell dat pine sol. The fresh scent of pine trees has a significant impact on climate change

Doesn't seem very hard to confound a climate scientist.

Looking at the wiki, it has research related to ocean, air, and land absorption of energy, atmisoheric particulates and reflected sun light, and solar dimming. Looks reasonable to me at first glance.

So your arguement seems to be that I didn't spoon feed you every research paper on climate energy balance, therefore climate scientists don't know what's going on, unlike Forbes and the Wall St Journal.


Well someone sure seems confounded and it's not the climate scientists.

 

[glenn1]

Looking at the wiki, it has research related to ocean, air, and land absorption of energy, atmisoheric particulates and reflected sun light, and solar dimming. Looks reasonable to me at first glance.

So your arguement seems to be that I didn't spoon feed you every research paper on climate energy balance, therefore climate scientists don't know what's going on, unlike Forbes and the Wall St Journal.


Well someone sure seems confounded and it's not the climate scientists.

Let me invite you to this thread to continue the conversation. The take of you, Eskimospy, and everyone in here who's posted on the side of the climate scientists are especially invited. I'm sure you guys wouldn't turn down the opportunity to enlighten the rest of us.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2405416

 

[Paratus]

Let me invite you to this thread to continue the conversation. The take of you, Eskimospy, and everyone in here who's posted on the side of the climate scientists are especially invited. I'm sure you guys wouldn't turn down the opportunity to enlighten the rest of us.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2405416

I saw the thread earlier today. I feel like I'm being courted. But I don't post from work and things have been busy.

Rest assured I'll come up with a post for you guys to throw darts at.

 

[norseamd]

http://www.eurasiareview.com/25102014-past-climate-change-caused-ocean-just-atmosphere/

 

[dphantom]

interesting article. thanks