PDA

View Full Version : What to Make of a Warming Plateau



Chris
06-12-2013, 07:58 PM
What to Make of a Warming Plateau (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=3&)


The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming....

The title should be questioned: "What to Make of a Warming Plateau". It's not a warming plateau unless you presume global warming.


The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years....

No, more accurately temperatures have been virtually flat for the last 15 years.


there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts

It still exhibits rises and falls but overall the trend has been virtually flat. The reason 15 is important is climatologists base trends on that span. When it was first pointed out temps were virtually flat for 12 years, climatologist said OK but you need to wait 15 years. The trend is virtually flat. There is no reason to think anything unless you presume global warming.


The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists....the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not...

No they do not know. There is no reason to presume global warming.


As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming....

I am sure there are, just as there are alarmists who presume global warming, deniers who reject it.


Take aways:

1 Despite dramatic rises in CO2, over the last 15 years temperatures have trended virtually flat.
2 Scientists know no more why the trend has flattened than they knew why it was rising like a hockey stick.

Rebel Son
06-12-2013, 08:55 PM
I don't think anybody really knows, I think the "so called" climate change could be real. My thinking is that it is a normal cycle and not man made which may have come about sooner than our "great minds" predicted.

In simple terms an increase in temps will melt the snow caps which will cool down the streams that flow in the oceans. This will cause a decrease in ocean temps which will in time cause another ice age.

I think it all BS personally but there is merit to some of it. I seriously doubt we have the real knowledge to understand any of it.

zelmo1234
06-12-2013, 09:43 PM
well the left will come up with another scam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

Peter1469
06-13-2013, 05:34 AM
Climate has been changing on earth since day one. The question is whether man is causing any significant change. The climate computer models range form insignificant effect (about 1 degree + C per 100 years), to 4-6 times that in other models. But these are computer models that rely on the data inputted. We don't know all factors that affect the climate, so these models are imperfect at best, or useless at worse.

jillian
06-13-2013, 05:43 AM
Climate has been changing on earth since day one. The question is whether man is causing any significant change. The climate computer models range form insignificant effect (about 1 degree + C per 100 years), to 4-6 times that in other models. But these are computer models that rely on the data inputted. We don't know all factors that affect the climate, so these models are imperfect at best, or useless at worse.

i think using the word "causation" sets up a false analysis. the question is... are we EXACERBATING it (we are) and can we do things to be better caretakers of our planet (we can).

we are at 400 ppm for the first time in 4000 years.... that's unconscionable when we've known this was a problem for the past 40 years.

Peter1469
06-13-2013, 05:49 AM
i think using the word "causation" sets up a false analysis. the question is... are we EXACERBATING it (we are) and can we do things to be better caretakers of our planet (we can).

we are at 400 ppm for the first time in 4000 years.... that's unconscionable when we've known this was a problem for the past 40 years.

That is sort of the point. It hasn't caused an increase in warming. It has caused some deserts to start turning green, but that is good, not bad.

We have not known that increased CO2 was a problem. Some people have claimed it and used the issue to advocate for drastic and expensive changes in our lives.

Anyway what we need to worry about is cooling. We do know that ice ages come in cycles. We are due one.

jillian
06-13-2013, 05:57 AM
That is sort of the point. It hasn't caused an increase in warming. It has caused some deserts to start turning green, but that is good, not bad.

We have not known that increased CO2 was a problem. Some people have claimed it and used the issue to advocate for drastic and expensive changes in our lives.

Anyway what we need to worry about is cooling. We do know that ice ages come in cycles. We are due one.

no legitimate scientists believe we haven't contributed to warming.

i disagree with you about 1000 percent. and we need to explore alternative energies not just because of climate CHANGE but because of the fact that the people we funnel money to for our fossil fuels hate us and use that money against us.

and, no, i am not willing to destroy our environment for about 10 years worth of oil that will go to multinational corporations.

Peter1469
06-13-2013, 06:13 AM
no legitimate scientists believe we haven't contributed to warming.

i disagree with you about 1000 percent. and we need to explore alternative energies not just because of climate CHANGE but because of the fact that the people we funnel money to for our fossil fuels hate us and use that money against us.

and, no, i am not willing to destroy our environment for about 10 years worth of oil that will go to multinational corporations.

Hey, I am 100% for alternative energy. I often link to this book: Energy Victory
(http://www.energyvictory.net/)
I see our energy policy as a matter of national security rather than environmental.

Cigar
06-13-2013, 07:22 AM
All I can say is, get use to spending 10x the cost of prevention by rebuilding Cities. :f_doh:

Chris
06-13-2013, 07:26 AM
i think using the word "causation" sets up a false analysis. the question is... are we EXACERBATING it (we are) and can we do things to be better caretakers of our planet (we can).

we are at 400 ppm for the first time in 4000 years.... that's unconscionable when we've known this was a problem for the past 40 years.

Agree to some extent. We are not the sole cause. EXACERBATING is not very scientific though. And the dramatic increase in CO2, as you know from previous discussion, is actually having a positive effect on greening the earth.




no legitimate scientists believe we haven't contributed to warming

No one in this thread is arguing that, jillian.

Chris
06-13-2013, 07:28 AM
All I can say is, get use to spending 10x the cost of prevention by rebuilding Cities. :f_doh:

Explain, please.

Peter1469
06-13-2013, 07:30 AM
Explain, please.

He is likely referring to rising oceans.

Chris
06-13-2013, 07:32 AM
Climate has been changing on earth since day one. The question is whether man is causing any significant change. The climate computer models range form insignificant effect (about 1 degree + C per 100 years), to 4-6 times that in other models. But these are computer models that rely on the data inputted. We don't know all factors that affect the climate, so these models are imperfect at best, or useless at worse.

Exactly, the question is not whether we contribute to climate change but to what extent.

The other problem with the models is they are based on presumptions built into them such that inputting data will give expected results. That's what has scientist puzzled over the last 15 year trend of virtually flat temps, their models simply do not account for that but instead predict rising temps. Back to the drawing board.

(This BTW is the same problem with Keynesian predictions of a stimulus multiplier effect.)

Chris
06-13-2013, 07:33 AM
He is likely referring to rising oceans.

Cigar, you still stuck on Gore? Scientists have long rejected his dire politicization of climate change.