Nature:Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’

[Doc Savage Fan]

I see that eskimo"there is no lull"spy is curiously absent from this discussion. I would love to hear how Nature got this wrong.

We are not in a 17 year warming lull.

 

[Jaskalas]

I see that eskimo"there is no lull"spy is curiously absent from this discussion. I would love to hear how Nature got this wrong.

I can answer for him with the argument he should / would use.

Atmospheric temperature increase has paused because the energy imbalance is warming the oceans instead. <Insert graph of all-time-record ocean heat here> It will return to the atmosphere in due time.

 

[bshole]

I can answer for him with the argument he should / would use.

Atmospheric temperature increase has paused because the energy imbalance is warming the oceans instead. <Insert graph of all-time-record ocean heat here> It will return to the atmosphere in due time.

But wouldn't he be disagreeing with the IPCC then? Aren't they the authority that he appeals to?

 

[GaiaHunter]

I can answer for him with the argument he should / would use.

Atmospheric temperature increase has paused because the energy imbalance is warming the oceans instead. <Insert graph of all-time-record ocean heat here> It will return to the atmosphere in due time.

Showing differences of hundredths of degrees, measure with technology with error bars in the tenths of degrees, with barely any ocean coverage.

 

[Paul98]

Good question. If we did indeed have a robust understanding of how our climates works, we would know the answer. Unfortunately, this is not the case and all we're left with is speculation.

It should become clearer after the next change

Edit: along with the other natural cycles we are monitoring.

 

[BUnit1701]

Showing differences of hundredths of degrees, measure with technology with error bars in the tenths of degrees, with barely any ocean coverage.

Flat-earther! The science is settled, stop buying into the Koch's propaganda. /eskimospy

 

[Vic]

We put men on the moon a long, long time ago and we didn't do it by taxing the hell out of everybody and spending it with no accountability.

Gonna have to disagree with this one. The Apollo program cost $25.4 billion in 1960s dollars (over $200 billion in todays dollars).

 

[chucky2]

I think that was his point. It was spent in some kind of accountable manner for a clear objective. Spending on global warming, then global cooling, and now the far more broad man made climate change, will have no such clear objective and given UN (since it will have to be global) will be a complete and total clusterf*ck. The UN couldn't get 14 helicopters to Sudan after years of incompetence and blabbing...trusting it to handle Trillions and fight 'man made climate change' is basically just a non-starter.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, some of us prefer these little things called facts to fear-mongering from environazis.

With this perspective you are projecting, I can safely concur that facts are of little concern to you.

:hmm:

 

[BUnit1701]

With this perspective you are projecting, I can safely concur that facts are of little concern to you.

:hmm:

Fact : Scientific Theories are just that, theories. When they become fact, they call them scientific laws.

 

[zinfamous]

Fact : Scientific Theories are just that, theories. When they become fact, they call them scientific laws.

How's that theory of gravity working for you?

What about evolution?

Fact: I'm a scientist. no need to preach to me

 

[boomerang]

Gonna have to disagree with this one. The Apollo program cost $25.4 billion in 1960s dollars (over $200 billion in todays dollars).

Was there a special tax put in place to fund it? A moon tax? A counterpart to Cap and Trade? That's my angle along with what chucky2 said.

 

[ThinClient]

Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.

I play that game :awe:

 

[silverpig]

How's that theory of gravity working for you?

What about evolution?

Fact: I'm a scientist. no need to preach to me

Gravity is a law

General relativity is a theory (and it's better than the law of gravitation)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How's that theory of gravity working for you?

What about evolution?

Fact: I'm a scientist. no need to preach to me

As you know, scientific theories must make falsifiable predictions. Climate scientists developed more than 40 models to test their theories and ALL the models failed to predict the temperature lull that's occurred the past 16 years. To compare the over-arching theories of gravity and evolution to climate science theory (as if it somehow elevates its credibilty) seems ridiculous to me....but I'm not a scientist and probably don't know any better.

 

[BUnit1701]

How's that theory of gravity working for you?

What about evolution?

Fact: I'm a scientist. no need to preach to me

Just because there IS gravitation does not mean we understand WHY there is gravitation or what causes it. Important distinction.

 

[Vic]

Was there a special tax put in place to fund it? A moon tax? A counterpart to Cap and Trade? That's my angle along with what chucky2 said.

1960s tax rates were considerably higher than today, especially at the top bracket.

I don't quite follow your reasoning though. Every government cost is taxed, the only question is when that tax will be collected.
The carbon tax is effectively a sin or luxury tax though, and I have mixed feelings about those.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

So exactly how many years is it appropriate to measure climate over?

Honestly? We don't know. Our best models can only make predictions, which is why we run them hundreds of times and multiple models.

Everybody wants scientists to have some crystal ball answer. They don't. They can present the facts which show that A) we are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere/environment and B) lots of CO2 in an atmosphere/environment produces a warming effect (among some other facts like the ocean is acidifying, ice-free North pole, glacier recession, etc). The facts point us to a direction of a warmer planet. So what does that mean? Well we look back through time via data from ice cores, tree rings, rocks/geological formations, etc and we see that the environments are significantly different. And here is the thing. Our species has built itself with a pretty stable climate. We haven't experience different outside of some every so often events like the little ice age. But a drastic climatic change can do lots of damage from rising sea levels, to ruining farm land (i.e. too hot/cold, wet/dry, etc), to acidification of the oceans causing a collapse of the ecosystem there. Any of those would have a drastic impact on our species, and data shows all are possible and have happened before.

 

[HumblePie]

Fact : Scientific Theories are just that, theories. When they become fact, they call them scientific laws.

WTF??


Your post is yet another example of someone that failed every middle school and high school science class. You have zero clue or relevant information to post about in this thread just based off this one post. Or any other science argument based threads. Do us all a favor and either a) stop trolling or b) refrain from further posting until you educate yourself.

 

[Paratus]

Fact : Scientific Theories are just that, theories. When they become fact, they call them scientific laws.

Hi I'm BUnit1701 and I don't know what a scientific theory is or how it's used!

My hypothesis is you are just an uniformed early 20 something Fox watching, AM radio listening, conservative troll.

 

[GaiaHunter]

How's that theory of gravity working for you?

What about evolution?

Fact: I'm a scientist. no need to preach to me

If you are a scientist you know there is no settled science.

 

[GaiaHunter]

A scientific theory needs to be validated by observation.

Based on the global warming theory, computer models were built. None of the computer models builds were able to predict or explain lack of warming of the last 16 years.

Something is clearly amiss on how scientists understand the earth climate system.

And now they are pointing at natural variability as a reason for the lack of warming.

Of course any inquisitive mind will ask if the natural variability can stall the temperatures despite rising CO2 concentrations, why couldn't natural variability have caused the rising temperatures in the first place?

The response from CAGW is that it can't be because otherwise the CO2 as the main driver of the global warming theory would be invalidated, despite the science having barely any clue how these natural cycles actually work.

 

[Aldon]

Blaming humans for climate change sells. The truth doesn't sell if there is no one to blame.

 

[Triumph]

I believe humans are causing climate change and I think we need to do something to stop it. I think most climatologist scientists are smarter than most people on AT, and definitely smarter than the typical Faux News consumers.

But, the climate changes. At the end of the last ice age, sea levels rose by FEET. Obviously that wasn't our fault, and if humans can manage to stick around for a while, this shit is going to happen to us whether we cause it or not. Might as well figure out a way to weather the storm. I'm banking on a dirigible.

 

[Aldon]

I believe humans are causing climate change and I think we need to do something to stop it.

But, the climate changes. At the end of the last ice age, sea levels rose by FEET. Obviously that wasn't our fault, and if humans can manage to stick around for a while, this shit is going to happen to us whether we cause it or not.

Huh? If you know we haven't caused climate change before and sea levels rose by feet at the end of the ice age, why make that argument in the first place? Kind of contradicting.