Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

[Frank Merton]

In catastrophe theory one learns that often the situation is that nothing much bad happens until you pass a threshold and then the building collapses.

[mxcx]

Why thats funny, all of the carbon they say that is causing this just paused itself. Go figure.

[Frank Merton]

Why thats funny, all of the carbon they say that is causing this just paused itself. Go figure.

I think the carbon is doing what it does naturally. The idea as I get it is that the extra warming is not of the whole planet but selective. and first it is warming the deep oceans so we don't notice as much.

You think about that and its even scarier, since once the deep oceans get as warm as they are going to get, then it will be a little late to try to cool them.

[Zaphod222]

Global warming has been on "pause" for 15 years but will speed up again and is still a real threat, Met Office scientists have warned.

Surface temperatures around the world have not increased on average since the late 1990s, causing some sceptics to suggest that climate change is not happening as quickly as experts predict.

But in a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level.

http://www.telegraph...-to-resume.html

The whole "global warming" scheme is too valuable as a lever for politicians to push through new taxes and programs to increase government to let it drop. They`d still claim "global warming" if the White House was covered by a mile-thick ice sheet.

Meanwhile, of course, the real issues are studiously ignored.

[Frank Merton]

The whole "global warming" scheme is too valuable as a lever for politicians to push through new taxes and programs to increase government to let it drop. They`d still claim "global warming" if the White House was covered by a mile-thick ice sheet.

Meanwhile, of course, the real issues are studiously ignored.

You might be right, but it is a bit much for me to believe since I don't see where the politicians have gotten much if anything out of it all, and the dangers we appear to be in make for a very serious business if you are wrong.

[Imaginarynumber1]

May I humbly posit that this article is a perfect example of how dogmatic materialism restricts one's ability to look,examine,test and propose alternate scientific theories. In our very own solar system,there are significant climatic changes happening on the other planets that do not stand up to the position that here on planet earth, CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. There are climatic changes taking place on Terra, but to place the blame on man is disingenuous. While certainly human kind has not been kind to our environment, there are larger forces at work.

It's kind of the "can't see the forest for the tree's" effect.

Are you a climatologist? A planetary scientist? Cosmologist, perhaps? Even a meteorologist?

Somehow I doubt you fully grasp the situation.

[Zaphod222]

Complex systems do not behave in a straight line response, get over it.

It is the job of scientists to account for circumstances as they arise.

Exactly, That is why the attempt to simplify the complex system of planetary climate to one single and ridiculously small factor (made made CO2 emissions) is so ludicrious right off the bat.

But the POLITICIANS love it, of course. And so do the recipients of research funding.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Zaphod222

[Guest]

Exactly, That is why the attempt to simplify the complex system of planetary climate to one single and ridiculously small factor (made made CO2 emissions) is so ludicrious right off the bat.

But the POLITICIANS love it, of course. And so do the recipients of research funding.

If that was what they were attempting we could agree. They are in fact quantifying myriad influences - of which CO2 is just one. Only by understanding the totality can the role of CO2 be quantified. So I am afraid your wrong.

Br Cornelius

[Space Commander Travis]

So basically, Climate change is far too complex for anyone who hasn't made a career of studying it for years to possibly have a hope of understanding, but Climate Change is very real and irreversible, and it's all our fault? Not at all anything remotely like the more complex arguments about theological doctrine, is it. This is why I do honestly think that Climate Change is very much like a religion for some people, with its enthusiasts absolutely insisting that we must believe what the Experts (the Cardinals and Archbishops of the Climate Change faith), since it's far too complex for ordinary folks to possibly understand. So just trust the Experts.

[Guest]

So basically, Climate change is far too complex for anyone who hasn't made a career of studying it for years to possibly have a hope of understanding, but Climate Change is very real and irreversible, and it's all our fault? Not at all anything remotely like the more complex arguments about theological doctrine, is it. This is why I do honestly think that Climate Change is very much like a religion for some people, with its enthusiasts absolutely insisting that we must believe what the Experts (the Cardinals and Archbishops of the Climate Change faith), since it's far too complex for ordinary folks to possibly understand. So just trust the Experts.

If there really was a pause in global warming, as opposed to a slowdown in surface temperature rise, then such a faith based position might ring true. A failure to understand that a complex system can behave in a complex way - whilst still progressively accumulating energy - shows a lack of reasoning ability.

There are no indications in the data that climate change has paused and if you took the time to study the research you would know this.

Since the majority of the population are not prepared to take the effort to understand a complex system it is unfortunately the role of scientists to simplify the message into a form which can be easily grasped - and that is where the problems arise.

Br Cornelius

[Zaphod222]

A failure to understand that a complex system can behave in a complex way - whilst still progressively accumulating energy - shows a lack of reasoning ability.

That failure would be on the side of the global warming faith community. The whole idea that we can (or even should) regulate the global climate like an oversized airconditioner is absurd.

A failure to see that the motivation for the simplistic "CO2 equals global warming" slogan really is a push for more political power and taxes really shows some naivite.

Case in point, remember that UN attempt to introduce a cow fart tax to save our climate? Turns out methane emissions have a much bigger impact than CO2. But somehow pushing that through was to messy, so it was quietly buried:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

How short memories are...

[Space Commander Travis]

If there really was a pause in global warming, as opposed to a slowdown in surface temperature rise, then such a faith based position might ring true. A failure to understand that a complex system can behave in a complex way - whilst still progressively accumulating energy - shows a lack of reasoning ability.

There are no indications in the data that climate change has paused and if you took the time to study the research you would know this.

Since the majority of the population are not prepared to take the effort to understand a complex system it is unfortunately the role of scientists to simplify the message into a form which can be easily grasped - and that is where the problems arise.

Br Cornelius

see what i mean? Classic dogmatism. Anyone who isn't convinced by them has "a lack of reasoning ability"; "if you took the time to study the research you would know this"; "Since the majority of the population are not prepared to take the effort to understand a complex system"; we (those who know the Truth), (or the Experts we take as our figures of authority) know more than you. But if it's far too complex for the ordinary person to hope to begin to understand, (so you have to trust the Experts), what good will studying the research do to help the ignorant masses understand the holy mysteries?

(And also, of course, classic dogmatism that the only Experts who should be trusted are those who agree with our point of view; anyone who doesn't is anathematised as a Heretic.)

[Guest]

I never said it was to complex for the average person to understand - but you have to have a will to move beyond denial and have a little confidence that someone who has spent their life studying climate knows a little more than yourself. I think it is the arrogance of those in denial which is the problem here - not a faith in something that hasn't been demonstrated empirically.

The science is in no way beyond the ability of anyone to understand - if you want to understand it.

Br Cornelius

[Zaphod222]

I never said it was to complex for the average person to understand - but you have to have a will to move beyond denial and have a little confidence that someone who has spent their life studying climate knows a little more than yourself. I think it is the arrogance of those in denial which is the problem here - not a faith in something that hasn't been demonstrated empirically.

Ah, the "deniers".

That is what is such a giveaway about the global warming movement.... the doubters are attacked in religious terms. They are "deniers". Why not come out and call us infidels.

That fact that all of science is BASED on continuous doubt and re-examination and not on dogma somehow got lost here.

By they way, can I assume that Cornelius is a denier of the danger of cow farts to our climate?

Edited July 24, 2013 by Zaphod222

[Space Commander Travis]

Ah, the "deniers".

That is what is such a giveaway about the global warming movement.... the doubters are attacked in religious terms. They are "deniers". Why not come out and call us infidels.

That fact that all of science is BASED on continuous doubt and re-examination and not on dogma somehow got lost here.

By they way, can I assume that Cornelius is a denier of the danger of cow farts to our climate?

indeed. See what i mean about heretics. Anyone questions the official wisdom is in denial.

[Guest]

If you want to continue with this and retain any credibility, please explain in detail what issues you have with CO2 been an agent of climate change. These high faluting statements of doubt are to easy to avoid the difficult question of what has caused recent climate change. If you want to remain in denial justify your position with a well researched counter explanation for what has caused the warming over the last century and a half. Then we can analysis what credibility your position has.

Lets take this out of the realm of accusing scientists of been religious fanatics and pin some hard facts on why you don't accept the climate science. Denial thrives on ignorance, so lets put an end to it.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 24, 2013 by Guest

[MysticStrummer]

Ah, the "deniers".

That is what is such a giveaway about the global warming movement.... the doubters are attacked in religious terms. They are "deniers". Why not come out and call us infidels.

I just read the entire thread, and it is the skeptics who brought religious terms into this discussion.

[Little Fish]

If you want to continue with this and retain any credibility, please explain in detail what issues you have with CO2 been an agent of climate change. These high faluting statements of doubt are to easy to avoid the difficult question of what has caused recent climate change. If you want to remain in denial justify your position with a well researched counter explanation for what has caused the warming over the last century and a half. Then we can analysis what credibility your position has.

Lets take this out of the realm of accusing scientists of been religious fanatics and pin some hard facts on why you don't accept the climate science. Denial thrives on ignorance, so lets put an end to it.

Br Cornelius

http://hockeyschtick...s-man-made.html

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=243846entry4686393

Edited July 24, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

I am having bad deja vu here- vertigo inducing.

Little Fish we did that paper to death long ago - it is grossly flawed because it confuses cause and effect and strips out the main climate signal by design. probably one of the worst climate papers to slip through peer review.

I can point you to a detailed refutation if you haven't got the message yet;

Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO₂ from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr^{− 1}.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

An analysis of the refutation paper;

http://www.skeptical...ade-carbon.html

Br Cornelius

Edited July 24, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

I am having bad deja vu here- vertigo inducing.

Little Fish we did that paper to death long ago - it is grossly flawed because it confuses cause and effect and strips out the main climate signal by design. probably one of the worst climate papers to slip through peer review.

I can point you to a detailed refutation if you haven't got the message yet;

http://www.sciencedi...921818113000908

An analysis of the refutation paper;

http://www.skeptical...ade-carbon.html

Br Cornelius

where is the peer reviewed and published refutation?

[Guest]

I gave you the link - follow it. It is a paper which specifically addresses the shortcomings of the Humlum paper. Unfortunately its behind a paywall and that is why I gave the summery link.

Its main point - which I made when you last brought this paper up, is that you cannot strip out the main climate signal and attempt to draw meaningful conclusions from the residual signal. Its like only looking at the sunny spells between thunder storms and concluding it was a dry day.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 24, 2013 by Guest

[questionmark]

I gave you the link - follow it. It is a paper which specifically addresses the shortcomings of the Humlum paper. Unfortunately its behind a paywall and that is why I gave the summery link.

Its main point - which I made when you last brought this paper up, is that you cannot strip out the main climate signal and attempt to draw meaningful conclusions from the residual signal. Its like only looking at the sunny spells between thunder storms and concluding it was a dry day.

Br Cornelius

Without looking at the previous page: Little Fish at it again?

[Guest]

Without looking at the previous page: Little Fish at it again?

Yep

Same tunes, same sources.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

So basically, Climate change is far too complex for anyone who hasn't made a career of studying it for years to possibly have a hope of understanding,

That depends on how far into the subject you want to go. The most-complex of scientific discoveries can usually be described in a few simple words. The complexity is in the process of determining whether the discovery is, in fact, true. That usually involves a lot of statistics and careful logic. So it all boils down to: how much do you want to know and how hard are you willing to work?

but Climate Change is very real and irreversible, and it's all our fault?

Climate change is very real. There is some interesting research going on right now about whether it is reversible: stay tuned.

As to who's fault: in 1958 we didn't know that CO2 levels were going up. In 1975 we didn't know that temperatures were about to soar. We saw temperatures going up in the 1990s, but we didn't know if it was real, or just a statistical anomaly. In 2005 we figured out that it was real. We didn't have regulatory machinery in place until 1972 and even now the technology isn't quite what it needs to be for regulation to really be effective.

Also, a starving man will cut the last redwood or fry the last spotted owl to feed his family for another day. Is it his fault that he has to survive?

It's not really fair to assign blame as we are all part of the problem. What we need to do is find and apply solutions. There are some out there and industry is starting to apply some, even if other industries and governments are so blinded by ideology that they can't see their noses. What most people seem to forget is that there are good, effective and cheap solutions. We can supply electricity cheaper with wind than with any other means. Global warming aside, what's keeping us from doing it?

Not at all anything remotely like the more complex arguments about theological doctrine, is it. This is why I do honestly think that Climate Change is very much like a religion for some people, with its enthusiasts absolutely insisting that we must believe what the Experts (the Cardinals and Archbishops of the Climate Change faith), since it's far too complex for ordinary folks to possibly understand. So just trust the Experts.

Don't trust the experts. Become one. Do some reading, maybe even some original research. Make up your own mind.

Doug

P.S.: If you saw that typo before I got it fixed, I apologize. But it WAS funny, though.

Doug

Edited July 24, 2013 by Doug1029

[danielost]

see what i mean? Classic dogmatism. Anyone who isn't convinced by them has "a lack of reasoning ability"; "if you took the time to study the research you would know this"; "Since the majority of the population are not prepared to take the effort to understand a complex system"; we (those who know the Truth), (or the Experts we take as our figures of authority) know more than you. But if it's far too complex for the ordinary person to hope to begin to understand, (so you have to trust the Experts), what good will studying the research do to help the ignorant masses understand the holy mysteries?

(And also, of course, classic dogmatism that the only Experts who should be trusted are those who agree with our point of view; anyone who doesn't is anathematised as a Heretic.)

see what i mean? Classic dogmatism. Anyone who isn't convinced by them has "a lack of reasoning ability"; "if you took the time to study the research you would know this"; "Since the majority of the population are not prepared to take the effort to understand a complex system"; we (those who know the Truth), (or the Experts we take as our figures of authority) know more than you. But if it's far too complex for the ordinary person to hope to begin to understand, (so you have to trust the Experts), what good will studying the research do to help the ignorant masses understand the holy mysteries?

(And also, of course, classic dogmatism that the only Experts who should be trusted are those who agree with our point of view; anyone who doesn't is anathematised as a Heretic.)

I get the you don't understand comment, when I disagree with them and sometimes I am stupid or an idiot.