After decades of research that sought, and found, evidence of a human influence on the earth’s climate, climatologists are beginning to shift to a new and similarly daunting enterprise: creating decade-long forecasts for climate, just as meteorologists routinely generate weeklong forecasts for weather.
One of the first attempts to look ahead a decade, using computer simulations and measurements of ocean temperatures, predicts a slight cooling of Europe and North America, probably related to shifting currents and patterns in the oceans…
The authors stressed that the pause in warming represented only a temporary blunting of the centuries of rising temperatures that scientists have projected if carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases continue accumulating in the atmosphere…
Other researchers, including NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, reported separately on April 21 that a slowly fluctuating oscillation in Pacific Ocean temperatures had already shifted into its cool phase, a condition that also is thought to exert an overall temporary cooling of the climate.
These natural variations can also amplify warming, and that is likely to happen on and off in future decades as well, experts say.
Nutballs – of course – will not comprehend the word “temporary”. But, then, the differences between climate and weather don’t always sink into the brains of those who use the Weather Channel as their prime source for meteorologic science.
But the TV says I should be scared because its sunny!!! OMFG it’s going to rain tomorrow. RUN!
This is why I was always more in favor of the label “Global Climate Change”. A period of instability means that it becomes harder to predict the trends, not that there is a constant movement towards hotter and hotter, which is kind of an absurd model. Global climate change is a manageable problem, even if it means abandoning a lot of the old profit models. Of course, the elite don’t want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, even if their children are drowning in goose guano at this point, and so they use fear to paralyze their serfs and give us all the impression that there is nothing to be done when there is much that could be done to adapt.
The term “global warming” has become a liability. The neo-con corporate cheerleaders who have been duped into working against their own interest will be instructed to jump on this and say it’s proof that humans are not harming the earth.
I think it’s clear that whatever the temperature trend might be, humans are slowly destroying the earth.
These long term predictions in the article are crap I bet. The weather guy here said it was going to rain all day here one day last week. It stopped after 9am. Sure we do have some accuracy and success, but I wouldn’t start betting money on weather predictions.
I wouldn’t start betting money on weather predictions
Confusing weather and climate…
Gee, let’s see, first global cooling in the 70s then global warming. Now it’s global cooling. What’s next? Let me guess: global warming? Give it up people. It’s true we are slowly killing the planet with all of the carbon emissions and all but they whole global warming crowd and their new religion have over done it. I’m sick of the term “Global Warming”. Why not a new term like “Clean Air”? “Let’s clean up the air by reducing our carbon emission.” I think that would sound better then the tried and oft questioned Global Warming.
#5
Well said. Global warming is a farce, come on, video from day after tomorrow in an inconvenient truth. That said, we are damaging the planet, and should take steps to not do that.
On the other hand, there is not way we still be using fossil fuel in 100 years. The internal combustion engine will be an ancient relic, like the steam engine is today. A better technology will come along, and we will change. There is no good reason to destroy the economy today which would prevent these new innovations from happening.
– You can bet on the weather by trading futures at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
From a purely marketing point-of-view the term “Global Warming” was bad. It is too easy to argue against (even if the arguments aren’t that strong). “Climate Change” isn’t much better since it’s very vague — maybe we’ll like the new climate better than the old climate!
Instead let’s concentrate on these selling points:
1. Pollution is bad.
2. Wasting energy is bad.
3. Excessive dependence on oil is bad.
Fix any of these and we won’t have to listen to another granola-chewing tree-hugger again.
And thats the reason I’ve been so skeptical of the need to act on global warming. The most prominent pieces of information in the media has been short term trends that could be simply explained away by variances. Oh boy, it was 70 in Rochester NY today, must be that global warming. ::Hand hits forehead::
Global Warming crowd started losing their cred with me when the whole Carbon Credit thing started to make the rounds. Then they started post-poning meetings and what not because the weather was too cold. What’s that all about?
Global Warming isn’t about climate change or the environment. It is about control. If we make a big scary issue and raise fears, the government will have no choice but to “do something”. The government can’t “do something” without raising taxes (in this case on energy, which means taxing everything) or making more laws to control us.
It doesn’t matter if science shows the Earth is warming or cooling; it just has to justify government control and intervention. If scientists don’t play along, then they lose grants or maybe even lose their jobs.
Be on guard if you hear a policy being suggested because of global warming, terrorism, or for the children. I have heard the issue of banning cigarette smoking invoking all three.
Nutballs – of course – will not comprehend that there is no ocean in a greenhouse like there is on Earth, which, in effect, is one of many cooling mechanisms God or the Evolutionary Process installed, nor will Nutballs understand that the Troposphere, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Thermosphere, and Exosphere all have properties of complex fluid dynamics and chemical compositions of matter that glass does not have.
Global Warners could have very fine careers writing horoscopes.
RBG
I don’t confuse weather and climate, I use Accuwindow for one and Algore toilet paper for the other.
Heh. Heh heh heh. Nevermind that 99% of people with an IQ in the triple digit range recognize the problem of global warming, or that virtually every qualified climatological scientist in the civilized world recognizes the problem of global warming. The lackeys of Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal and far-right fruitcakes will continue to talk about Al Gore toilet paper and horoscopes.
It’s a disease, like alcoholism. Denial.
It’s not too surprising. Given the correlation between observed solar activity and observed temperature, scientists have been predicting a cooler temperature. It was imperative for those with an agenda to explain this away as part of the same global warming model, so they can continue to try to get people to hand over power over their lives to others.
Do you want to know why the predictions have changed? It’s because the fundamental basis of Global Warming was wrong all along.
Here are the guys who got it right and forced a re-evaluation of the entire global warming dogma.
Be careful, this paper actually has sources, firm data, logical thinking, and real science. It’s not for the faint of heart or for those who have swallowed Al Gore hook, line, and sinker.
Don’t bother even talking about Global Warming until you have read and understand this paper. I don’t mean glance and think you know, but read and understand.
http://tinyurl.com/6jtkdp
That said, I’m in total agreement with #5, #6, and #8. We have plenty enough reasons to get off of using oil without Climate Change.
People who believe in science over politics need to ask themselves(or the scientists), what future observations would mean the model is wrong?
If there is no answer, then this isn’t a verifiable hypothesis, they are not using the scientific method.
Keep in mind that people like James Hansen and other scientists have been telling us the problem is now, we could be underwater in a few decades, global warming is accelerating, etc(there might have been some posts on this blog about it)
Everything I’ve read suggests that solar variation is responsible for about 5-15% of the cause of global warming. One study suggested 5-30%. Even if one goes with the high end of the extremist report, it still leaves humanity responsible for 70% of the problem … and means that reduced solar intensity will not be enough to counter the other 70% or more likely 85+% of the cause.
Further, anyone in doubt of climate change because of this one article has clearly missed some important statements in it:
It helps not to just read the headline.
What about the Roman Cooling Period, followed by the Medieval Warming Period, followed by the Little Ice Age?
Greenland used to be green. Citrus fruit used to grow in Great Briton. The Earth warms; the Earth cools.
CO2 levels self regulate. Read about the carbon cycle. It can be educational.
Despite all this I think global warming will eventually be what kills us all. The sun will swell into a red giant and expand to the orbit of Mars when the hydrogen in the sun is fused and the sun must start fusing helium. That should warm the Earth a bit, but I don’t think driving my car will make a difference in how long the sun stays on the main sequence as opposed to becoming a red giant.
#15 – Mr. Mustard,
Well said … and ROFLMAO!
#20 – Ben,
FYI, the Greenland Ice Sheet is 110,000 years old. It has not been green in Greenland in recorded history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
From Michael Crichton:
You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity.
Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us.
If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again.
In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
#23 – jbenson2,
From Michael Crichton …
Yes, I always take the word of a science fiction writer over … say … the scientists of the National Academy of Sciences. Good call.
#20 Thats a classic mistake. The vikings got one over on you. Hahaha
North America and Europe have been covered in ice for most of their history with occasional 10000 year periods of warmth in between. The last ice age ended 11000 years ago.
>>so they can continue to try to get people
>>to hand over power over their lives to
>>others.
The only ones who would be “handing over power” in this case are the billionaires who run the military-industrial complex. The rest of us will simply go on as before, except the world won’t be going to hell in a handbasket before our very eyes.
I wonder if the Cool-Earthers are direct descendants of the Flat-Earthers. They seem to share a disdain for objective scientific observation.
#27 – Mister Mustard,
I wonder if the Cool-Earthers are direct descendants of the Flat-Earthers. They seem to share a disdain for objective scientific observation.
Nope. Flat earthers haven’t existed since the ancient Greeks determined that the earth was round about 400BC. So, there are no decedents of people who never existed. Unfortunately though, the cool-earthers are not a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology
Fact: Global warming is real.
Fact: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a still nascent theory based strongly on computer models that can’t reproduce real world data using real world data.
Fact: The Mathematical Formula for calculating anthropogenic warming effect has as one of its key tenets that Water, in the form of vapor, droplets, and crystal, the single largest “Greenhouse Gas” by volume has no impact on the “Greenhouse Effect.”
Fact: The Mathematical Formula for calculating anthropogenic warming effect has as one of its key tenets that the atmosphere is infinite in volume. That means that the people who believe in it believe that you could fly a plane to Alpha Centauri without leaving the earth’s atmosphere.
If you still want to think that people who are skeptical are nuts then consider this. 19,000+ Scientists qualified to speak and judge the merits of the subject, not laymen, spoke out against the Kyoto accords on the grounds that the “Science” of Global Warming supporting them was at best faulty, and at worst wholly incorrect. So far none of them have been convinced to change their minds.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Furthermore, you should consider that when several key scientists who formerly supported the theory found that as the “Science” progressed it was no longer valid and tried to leave the IPSCC and have their names removed from the reports they had to threaten legal action to make it happen.
Also, #24 don’t be so quick to disregard Michael Chrichton’s State of Fear. it is both well written, and well researched taking data from, among others, the people at the National Academy of Sciences which you so respect, the IPSCC, and the NASA Goddard Institute in addition to many others. Then he presents it in a form that is easily digestible throughout the book and leaves you to draw your own conclusions. He even provides all the references, often to online official sources you can quickly check yourself to see if he has doctored the data presented in any way.
Meanwhile, the Media, Environmentalists, and the IPSCC force feed us with their version of things. This version is produced by an ever shrinking body of scientists, well that and an ever growing body made up of politicians, actors, and celebrities that already outnumber and according to IPSCC records over rule the scientists.
#29 – Bob,
Never heard of the IPSCC. Perhaps you mean the IPCC?
I tried googling a number of names on the 19000 scientists site. Several things happened. First, when I copied the names to my local disk, a quick count showed only 16000+. Second, some random spot checking showed that most were never published at all in any field of climate science. Try searching scholar.google.com for them.
For a shorter list, since 16000+ is too many for a web page on my blog, you can go to the, someone on my blog posted a list of 60 scientists that dispute global warming. So, in response, I copied the list and made links of all of their names for searching on Google Scholar. It’s great fun. Feel free to try it.
Here’s a link directly to the reply I posted with all of the names and links.
http://tinyurl.com/63lott
Sorry it gets too big to do the same for the “19,000” that are really only 16,000.