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.
I knew it, I knew it!
I knew that even when I posted (#17) good science pointing to the real cause of Climate change, that no one would read it!
Climate change has now become more about one’s personal dogma than following the facts.
#31, “Page could not be found”
#18–Mike==you ask: “People who believe in science over politics need to ask themselves(or the scientists), what future observations would mean the model is wrong?” /// How about 100 years of temperature data trending cooler instead of warmer? Would that do it Bunky?
#23–jbenso==I have Michael Crichton on my reading list. Does he say more than what you quote because what you quote supports taking action to prevent global warming and I thought his book shot holes in the theory?
What position does Michael Crichton actually support, or is he just academically criticizing some potential flaws?
#31 – Ah_Yea,
I gave my opinion of the solar radiation back in post #19. I’m sorry if I didn’t particularly reference your link when I did. I was intending to give greater credibility to the issue than with your post.
Yours does not show the source of its temperature data. It is likely not global. It is also not nearly as long term as many of the data sets that include tree rings, ice cores, and ocean and lake bed cores, to go farther back in time to have a meaningful data set.
As I said in my prior post, 5-15% appears to be the majority for the effect of solar variation in the peer reviewed pubs. One that I read said 5-30%.
We’re not going to see significant or long term cooling from the disappearance of even 30% of the cause of global warming. Further, if the paper you cite is correct, then there should have been warm periods like the current one every 11 or 22 years going back far in history.
This does not match the data.
#31–Ah Yea==gee, I don’t recall you ever so excited?
You say: “Climate change has now become more about one’s personal dogma than following the facts” /// How do you separate yourself from this phenomenon?
So, they an accurately predict weather a hundred years out but not 10 years out?
#35–Ah Yea==a good sense of humor will keep you sane. None of us understand the data/models so completely that any of us “should be” believers of any camp?
When I start to think Scotts info is dispositive, we get a post like #29. I take his info at face value. Can water vapor really not be included in the model? Why isn’t it. Do I have to research what this means in order to accept or reject a theory? (I think so.)
I’ve read too many articles debunking the solar flare cycle so another one doesn’t do it for me.
So, I’m left in default==with evidence on both sides, flaws on both sides, bias on both sides.
My brain says common sense dictates that you add co2 to the atmosphere==it will get warmer. Balloon experiments support this.
Co2 concentrations are up and will only go higher.
Ice is melting everywhere.
I’m just shy of “believing” in global warming, but I am convinced it is the best supported theory.
bobbo, and let me take that one step further. Does the burning of fossil fuels affect the planet? Probably, but what does it really matter?
We have to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon anyhow, and to me the debate on global warming is a red herring that distracts us from making this transition.
The sooner we get off petroleum, the better.
#39–Ah Yea. You are just completely WRONG. Global Warming shows the results/harm of co2 pollution.
Going to bio based fuels is co2 neutral. Developing the worlds massive coal resources is continuing the co2 pollution. Very, Very, Very (see–that’s X3!) important.
So, global warming warns us of our current use of petroleum and it warns us of any transition to coal. I think it is relevant.
Bobbo, he says a lot more than that. Though I suspect State of Fear is somewhat dated with regards to the science. If he wrote it today, the negative case would be more devastating perhaps.
I don’t think the global warming crowd would be convinced by 100 years of cooling, considering the current prediction is as much as 30 years and we’re told it’s just part of a longer term warming.
Everyone note #34
We’re not going to see significant or long term cooling from the disappearance of even 30% of the cause of global warming.
So most of the solutions being presented on this board will not cause any significant or long-term cooling. Hybrid cars, electric cars, CFL bulbs, even switching to nuclear power, will not change things with regards to global warming.
#41–Mike==thats what I thought, so why not post a quote that is negative about global warming?
#42–you can think what you like but the IPCC and the general consensus of climate scientist would have to explain it.
#43–30% statement can be viewed in different ways==all to the effect we are near or past the tipping point. None of the things you listed gets rid of the excessive co2 already in the air. It only restrains the increase.
Why the concern over global warming/cooling/climate change? Isn’t evolutionism the ruling dogma of the day? If species can’t adapt to change (including the human animal) then they don’t deserve to survive.
The empty-headed Darwin pilgrims need stop trying to make a blip in time the “norm” for all of Earth’s evolutionary history. The post-Cretaceous are no more entitled to this planet than the Triassic.
Bobbo, I think we are saying the same thing.
“We have to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon”…”The sooner we get off petroleum, the better.”
I don’t know where coal came into this conversation, but the last time I looked, it was also considered to be a type of petroleum.
#46–Ah Yea. You ask, and I deliver:
Coal came into this discussion at my post #40.
We are not saying the same thing just the opposite unless you think coal is petroleum. Then, you are still WRONG. We are near peak oil, no where near peak coal. No reason for c02 pollution not to continue just because of declining reserves.
Petroleum: : an oily flammable bituminous liquid that may vary from almost colorless to black, occurs in many places in the upper strata of the earth, is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with small amounts of other substances, and is prepared for use as gasoline, naphtha, or other products by various refining processes
Coal: a black or brownish-black solid combustible substance formed by the partial decomposition of vegetable matter without free access of air and under the influence of moisture and often increased pressure and temperature that is widely used as a natural fuel
Both “fuel.” Both “carbon.” So is shit. All have similarities, all very different.
Bobbo, I swear, sometimes, even though I don’t want to, I have to talk down to you like you are a 3rd grader.
#39, I spoke of fossil fuels. In #40, you brought up coal. Is coal a fossil fuel? Should we be splitting hairs like this?
It makes me wonder about you…
#48–Ah Yea. Hmmm. Ok. Once more.
Is coal a fossil fuel?==Yes.
Is coal petroleum?==No.
Do we have to get off oil because it is running out?==yes.
Do we have to get off coal because it is running out?==no.
Does Global warming inform us on the damaging effects of burning oil, coal, and all other sequestered forms of energy?==yes.
Would Global Warming concerns go away if we totally stopped burning oil today?==no.
Can we burn coal without worrying about global warming?==No.
Is Global Warming a red herring?==No, it is and remains the overriding issue.
Your turn.
So now you are all for burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow! And here I thought you were concerned about global warming.
#50–Ah Yea. I think I see “our” confusion and its how and where the ambiguity of oil vs coal vs petroleum vs fossil fuels comes into play. Hard to know what is meant when the wrong word is used?
Still you say we have to get off fossil fuels? WHY????
ONLY because of Global Warming. If that’s true, Global Warming cannot be a red herring.
or–in one sentence, why do we need to get off fossil fuels? (We aren’t running out of coal, and nobody cares about pollution and harmful health effects.==Global warming is the only “real” long term reason.)
#36 – Ah_Yea,
Please explain this to me. I looked at that data fairly carefully. It seems to relate solar radiation to sunspots and solar radius and a number of factors.
However, it never relates it to global average temperature.
In fact, it seems to show the Wolf number dropping precipitously between 2000 and 2007, a time when we know global average temperature to be extremely high and arctic ice to hit new record minimum quantities.
What does this mean to you?
To me it means that the solar radiation has little to do with temperature. What am I reading incorrectly?
Further, do you happen to be aware that the surface temperature of Venus is higher than both the surface temperature of Earth and that of Mercury?
Mercury being much closer to the sun gets more sunlight than Venus but has a lower surface temperature.
Venus, despite being closer to the sun than Earth actually gets less sun at the surface due to a dramatically higher albedo (or reflectivity).
So, why is the surface of Venus 3 times the Kelvin temperature of the surface of Mercury?
Answer: CO2.
Venus is an example of the way greenhouse gases affect surface temperature of the planet. When considering its high surface temperature, it gets very difficult to imagine that doubling the greenhouse gases on Earth could possibly not have a dramatic effect.
Right..and you the smart guys get your “science” from a fat loser from TN. Oh you and the other smarts guys are going to eat crow. Just like you did on your long ago show. Crow time is coming johnny.
Right..and you the smart guys get your “science” from a fat loser from TN. Oh you and the other smart guys are going to eat crow. Just like you did on your long ago show. Crow time is coming johnny.
The claim that warming will resume is the alarmists’ attempt to maintain their global warming fantasy in the face of a cooling world. It actually is possible for an oscillation of cold ocean surface water to mask global warming (where an active sun is raising the average temperature of the oceans), and it even happened a mere 60 years ago (between 1940 and 1960), but this is NOT what is happening now.
Instead, we have a very dangerous situation where the cooling effect of a fall off in solar activity is being compounded by cold Pacific and Atlantic oscillations. Warming effects incur negative feedbacks that make them self limiting. Not so with cooling effects, which regularly plunge the world into 100,000 year long ice ages, with the next one due any century now. We should be guarding against this very real danger by pumping out as much greenhouse gas as we can, tailored to patch the infrared “holes” in our greenhouse blanket. My post here.
#54–Alex–interesting post link there. Yes, to the nonstudied here such as myself, it appears that science based holes are being poked in the Global Warming Theory. The problem is it cannot be proven in a scientific manner as there is no control group. A few months ago I started having problems seeing how co2 changes could be so important (the human caused element and theefore somewhat more controlable) because of the co2/temperture lag time issue that Al Gore misrepresented (that’s what put me on notice) and what appear to be minor atmospheric changes in co2 compared to methane and water vapor??
Anyway, I’m open to criticizing the basis of Global Warming Theory, but you really throw you entire website into disrepute when you post garbage like: “Distrust in truth is the fundamental human moral failing.”
I would say “Believing you have the truth and can stop looking is the fundamental human moral failing.”
Kinda separates us. Still looking past You, yea, those studies wear on me.
Scott?
#56–Ah Yea==yep, the discussion changes when you change what you say.
All your links were excellent, thank you for the headache.
I’ve tried to find some info on just how the IPCC model treats water vapor. I have found nothing conclusive so far, and it looks like a “project.” Right now, on only 1 hour googling, I’d say IPCC does not have a predictive model of how water vapor works?????
So==I quit. The issues are too complex and just amount to a bunch of arguments/data that all seem to be defective depending on what you read.
On your excellent reports, I found rebuttals that said the water vapor had a net warming affect that was highly correlated to co2 levels. So, indeed, it’s a complex issue.
My bottom line is the same as yours. We need to get off fossil fuels, rather than pick and choose why, all the reasons point to the same conclusion, so the only argument is who’s ox gets gored in what time frame?
Still lots to argue about…….
thanks.
The problem with the “global warming” situation is typically human. Let’s cast aside the scientific debate for a moment and assume the theory is true: our actions have caused global warming. Why did our actions cause global warming? Because we embraced the technological advances that allow us to harness the energy stored in fossil fuels WITHOUT BOTHERING TO THINK ABOUT POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES.
So now, we think we have a problem. We’re warming the globe and causing natural disasters. Hell it might even be the end of the human race.
But do we learn from our mistake? No, we just come up with a whole bunch of answers to our current problem WITHOUT BOTHERING TO THINK ABOUT POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES. Rather than taking a few years to properly research solutions that are not going to cause more problems, we believe that we need to solve our problem NOW. Everybody and their dog has an answer…carbon credits, biofuels, hydrogen cells (which incidentally release water vapor, itself a “greenhouse gas”), wind power, solar power, more nuclear powerplants…ad nauseum. But nobody seems to understand that every action we take will have consequences, some of which could be more catastrophic for the human race than the very problem that we’re trying to solve. Perhaps we deserve whatever fate we bring upon ourselves.
#58–Red==I think enough people publish about the negative consequences that you are actually missing a more complex problem but==what would your solution be to this very human/societal problem?
Do a simple cost/benefit analysis. Compare what we have to give up to stop Global Warming (TM) versus the effects of Global Warming (TM). I’ll take Global Warming (TM) any day. The economic damage being caused by the movement is worth stressing over, none of the rest of it is.
I am however, looking hard for an angle to make money off the green craze. When I find it, I’ll be preaching the dangers of Global Warming (TM) twice as hard as Scott.
Ah Yea,
Water vapor is often ignored because of its dual effect. Vapor is a powerful GHG. However, when it forms clouds, it blocks the sun and is an agent for cooling. It’s probably the hardest part to model.
What do you have to say about the Venus argument in post #52?
If Venus is warmer than both earth and mercury because of GHGs, doesn’t it make sense that doubling them, as we already may have done, here on earth will cause catastrophic effects?