Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:




    We should all be in agreement that (scientist and theorist) are not sure that what they know is accurate and they are not sure how much of their theory is true. 

     

    They know in certain circumstances certain things happen regarding climate but, the why's, when and how's are still very speculative.

    Then why on Gods green earth would we want the govt to get involved at this time???

    [QUOTE]

    Not really.

    Most reputable climate scientists believe the earth is warming, the only question is how much and over what amount of time...i.e. an aspect of 'climate sensitivity'...

    ...and only THEN what the effects of that estimated change will be.

    In reality, there are many thousands of theories about climate change, not just one.  And of those thousands of theories, the vast majority point to a global shift in weather patterns, crop cycles, storm intensity and myriad other results due to the relatively small - though highly contested - variable of 3-4 degrees centigrade.

     

     

    So what you are saying is "they know changes are happening and that in some instances what makes those changes happen but, to what effect or extent or what can change it they are inconclusive".

    Then why on Gods green earth would we want the govt to get involved at this time???

     



    Almost.  The causes are many and highly variable, which also makes the ensuing estimated results numerous and highly variable.  As someone mentioned, once the data is updated, the estimates change, and thus some theories are either strengthened, discounted, or utterly discredited.  [Hence, the article in question refers to AR4, not the more recent AR5.]

    None of which make the idea of doing nothing preferable to doing something...namely that more research and more estimation is critical to getting it right. 

    The govt is partly responsible for funding the research to-date, so they've been involved all along.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    The govt is partly responsible for funding the research to-date, so they've been involved all along.


    I'm good with that! Funding research to find conclusive data and not making any radical policy changes before that is smart!

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    "None of which make the idea of doing nothing preferable to doing something...namely that more research and more estimation is critical to getting it right. "

    Doing "nothing" is far preferable than doing "something" ., i.e., ruining the US economy, like the Europeans have already done with their failed green energy initiatives.

    Even assuming that global warming is a real threat, radical statist solutions by the US scientifically have not been shown to have any real impact; even if they did, it would only impact 12% of the problem worldwide!

    The recent private sector natural gas boom brought on by fracking has done more for clean air than all the windmills and solar panel idiocy.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Even assuming that global warming is a real threat, 



    A pretty big assumption to rest the entirety of your (faulty) argument upon.

    As it stands (and as I've said before), the private sector and insurance companies are already moving to financially mitigate the "threat" that you still can't find the intellectual courage to see.

    Science can expound and postulate all day long, but when the underwriting and finance boys get involved, you know it's serious.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The govt is partly responsible for funding the research to-date, so they've been involved all along.

     

     

     

    I'm good with that! Funding research to find conclusive data and not making any radical policy changes before that is smart!

     



    And yet some folks and presidenital candidates would seek to eliminate agencies like the EPA which helped get us this far.

    I don't see anything remotely "radical" about retrofitting public buildings to be more efficient and/or more sustainably powered, do you...?

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.  Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th.

     

    No one is saying that things haven't gotten warmer, the issue is why.

    Here's a couple of more points to consider.

    1) Given that greenhouse gasses are the cause of warming, we're still putting more and more of it into the atmosphere, and temperatures stopped rising for over fifteen years, it means that there is another force that is exerting a cooling on the earth that is the exact opposite of the warming caused by greenhouse gasses. So, for one to still believe that AGW theory is valid one must now identify this new mysterious force and explain it's inexplicable behavior.


    2) The earth has been warming for a lot longer than there has been internal combustion engines throwing CO2 into the air. In fact, we've been in a warming phase since the end of the little ice age in the middle ages. The question now becomes, what was causing the earth to warm during those centuries?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The govt is partly responsible for funding the research to-date, so they've been involved all along.

     

     

     

    I'm good with that! Funding research to find conclusive data and not making any radical policy changes before that is smart!

     

     



    And yet some folks and presidenital candidates would seek to eliminate agencies like the EPA which helped get us this far.

     

    I don't see anything remotely "radical" about retrofitting public buildings to be more efficient and/or more sustainably powered, do you...?

     



    I do think spending tax dollars on retrofitting public buildings is "radical", in that it normally doesnt pay for itself for decades...if it makes sense economically , it is worth doing..however, one only usually hears the usual green propaganda BS about retrofitting is "reducing greenhouse gases".

    It is another "feelgood"  way to spend taxpayers money on projects that dont make sense economically.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    I don't see anything remotely "radical" about retrofitting public buildings to be more efficient and/or more sustainably powered, do you...? 



    Not if, it's cost effective enough to overcome the initial cost and save the tax payers money overall.

    Radical is carbon tax, not allowing exploration and stopping energy projects for political reasons.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    I didn't realize that the scientific process has to run on a straight and undeviating line. Or that all theories have to be absolutely correct at the outset. It amazes me that some people want to disown science so adamantly only to suit a political agenda.

     


    Here. For your convenience I'm posting a link to a definition of the "scientific method."

    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

     

    Here is the important bit with some notes by me:

    I. The scientific method has four steps

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (The world is getting warmer.)

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.(Maybe the cause of the warming are 'greenhouse gases.')

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.(the development of climate models.)

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.(collect data, compare against model predictions.)

    If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

     

    (What has happened is that the predictions based on the theory have not borne out the hypothesis. Therefore, it must be rejected or modified. This is not politics, this is just the correct application of the scientific method.)

     

     




     

    Since when does one data period out of dozens constitute a disproven theory?

    If 90% of the data proves the theory and 5% doesn't with another 5% neutral then you don't assume the 5% to be the law of nature. You assume that the 90% points to the natural law. If the data overwhelmingly supports the theory but there is a small deviation in a small sample then it proves you are on the right track.

    Not only is that the proper application of scientific theory, it's just plain common sense.

    Anyone who glams onto the 5% and tries to use it as a rebuttal is an ideologue, not a scientist.



    I'm glad you see it my way, seeing that the "scientists" to which you cling bitterly to are selecting a time period that makes their case, while ignoring others.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    How about considering temperatures all the way back to the creation of Earth?




     

    They can't go all the way back, however, they are managing to go further and further back using deeper artic/antartic ice core samples.



    That's true.  In recent times, geologically speaking, it has been warmer ,around 800 a.d., for example.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    T he mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.  Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th.

     

     

    No one is saying that things haven't gotten warmer, the issue is why.

    Here's a couple of more points to consider.

    1) Given that greenhouse gasses are the cause of warming, we're still putting more and more of it into the atmosphere, and temperatures stopped rising for over fifteen years, it means that there is another force that is exerting a cooling on the earth that is the exact opposite of the warming caused by greenhouse gasses. So, for one to still believe that AGW theory is valid one must now identify this new mysterious force and explain it's inexplicable behavior.


    2) The earth has been warming for a lot longer than there has been internal combustion engines throwing CO2 into the air. In fact, we've been in a warming phase since the end of the little ice age in the middle ages. The question now becomes, what was causing the earth to warm during those centuries?

     

     




    None of your points disproves the global warming theory.

     

    There could be yet another explanation:

    Scientists have observed some cyclical warming and cooling of the Earth.

    The fact that temperatures have plateaued and not fallen could mean that the normal warming/cooling cycles have been interrupted by greenhouse gases and that we should be in a cooling cycle. The effects of pollution have interrupted that cycle and absent those effects we would be a few degrees cooler.

    That would be consistent with both observed cyclical temperatures and the fact that recent temperatures have neither risen nor fallen.

     




    Could be, but doubtful.

    Look, it is silly to postulate what is going on here based on a couple of decades of data, and a handful of measurements.

    Note I am not saying that we should do nothing.  what I am suggesting is that:

     

    We use the government means (taxation, regulation) sparingly in addressing a yet to be substantiated problem.

    To the extent that human activity is responsible, I might point out that we live here, and are not simply intergallactical parasites passing through and sapping the life out of the Earth.  We need to be careful to consider our needs as well.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    I didn't realize that the scientific process has to run on a straight and undeviating line. Or that all theories have to be absolutely correct at the outset. It amazes me that some people want to disown science so adamantly only to suit a political agenda.

     


    Here. For your convenience I'm posting a link to a definition of the "scientific method."

    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

     

    Here is the important bit with some notes by me:

    I. The scientific method has four steps

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (The world is getting warmer.)

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.(Maybe the cause of the warming are 'greenhouse gases.')

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.(the development of climate models.)

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.(collect data, compare against model predictions.)

    If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

     

    (What has happened is that the predictions based on the theory have not borne out the hypothesis. Therefore, it must be rejected or modified. This is not politics, this is just the correct application of the scientific method.)

     

     




     

    Since when does one data period out of dozens constitute a disproven theory?

    If 90% of the data proves the theory and 5% doesn't with another 5% neutral then you don't assume the 5% to be the law of nature. You assume that the 90% points to the natural law. If the data overwhelmingly supports the theory but there is a small deviation in a small sample then it proves you are on the right track.

    Not only is that the proper application of scientific theory, it's just plain common sense.

    Anyone who glams onto the 5% and tries to use it as a rebuttal is an ideologue, not a scientist.

     



    You are full of shiite.

     

    5% of data that disproves a theory does just that.

    How could the theory be correct if there is some data to show otherwise? Are you kidding me? 

    Oh 5 times out of 100 I dropped Ted Kennedy's body off the Tobin Bridge and it went up. 95 times it went down. So that proves that every time you drop it, it  goes down and let's just ignore the 5% of the time it goes up? No, it would mean that there is something else going on that needs to be accounted for in the theory to account for reality.

    You people who squawk about "deniers" and allthat politcal bs, are you now turning into deniers yourselves?

    What a bunch of dooooshbags.

     




    So is that what passes for civil discourse nowadays, insults.

     

    It's obvious you have no experience in either the scientific process or working with data.

    First of all, your analogy couldn't be more wrong.

    The data doesn't show that temperatures are falling, it shows that they are neutral, as in they have no impact on the data either way.

    If they were falling then it would be significant.

    Your ignorance of science is belied by the fact that this is an observational theory which can't be tested on such a scale to mimic the Earth's atmosphere. So sorry to disappoint but your body throwing analogy is about as useful as a cup of spit at a forest fire.

    I was being generous on the 5% of data being contradictory. In fact none of the data is contradictory, it is neutral at best.

    Sorry, I should have taken into account the grade school level of intelligence on these boards as evidenced by your unfamiliarity with science and further borne out by the childish insults.

     

    And by the way, weather and wind conditions as well as other factors could combine elevate a body briefly after it is thrown off a bridge.

    I guess next you will have to start denying gravity.

    Amazing how far the anti-science crowd will go in support of their political dogma.




    You forgot to mention that we are clinging bitterly to our guns and bibles, AND denying the planet is warming - even through it isn't.

    Get your insults tightened up a bit.  it is hard to accept them as valid points if they are incomplete.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    I don't see anything remotely "radical" about retrofitting public buildings to be more efficient and/or more sustainably powered, do you...? 

     



     

    Not if, it's cost effective enough to overcome the initial cost and save the tax payers money overall.

    Radical is carbon tax, not allowing exploration and stopping energy projects for political reasons.

     

     



    Energy efficiencies pay for themselves over time like any other in-demand re-model.  The military is already moving forward with renewables and not waiting for the deniers to decide for them.

     

    Carbon tax is not radical; it's perfectly logical...a "sin tax" for polluters.  The other two are figments of your imagination.

    Environmental concerns don't have to be (nor should they be) overtly political; some republicans just seem to prefer it that way.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    "The military is already moving forward with renewables and not waiting for the deniers to decide for them."

    LOL... are you kidding? Green energy was shoved down the military's throat....,

    Will North Korea be intimidated by a aircraft carrier running on windmills? No wind, no power...

    A provocative and non-scientific term, 'climate change denier' is terminology completely disconnected from reality and specifically used to incite hatred and revulsion....

     

Share