Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
UM-Bot

Global warming slowdown could last 15 years

98 posts in this topic

Scientists believe that excess heat is currently being stored in the depths of the world's oceans.

Recent data has shown that the long rise in global temperatures has evened out over the last few years, a revelation that has led to much debate amongst scientists and climate change skeptics.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/271272/global-warming-slowdown-could-last-15-years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

key uneducated American world destroyer:

That's right. Keep the panic alive. "things haven't gone end of the world bad like we predicted but just you wait, in another 15 years the world will end unless you knuckle under to our warmist agenda right now"

Edited by OverSword
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the uncalibrated computer models fail to predict reality, causing concern over the viability of their underlying, untested Global Warming theories.

The solutions ?

Bring out another untested theory to "explain" it, without diverting from the Holy Writ of AGM Global Warming.

Phew... that was close. Somebody give Professor Ka-Kit Tung another grant or two.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theories proposed to explain this have ranged from volcanic eruptions to sulphur from power stations in China, but now a new study published in the journal 'Science' has revealed that the ocean, in particular the Atlantic and Southern Oceans, may be trapping excess heat deep down below the surface.

They forgot to mention excessive methane gas release from the overcrowding herds of cows.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thought this was settled science yet here we have another completely unknown climate changer. Regardless, it allows them to kick the can down the road for another 15 years until they have to explain another new wonder.

Edited by Merc14
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea! We get to keep polluting a few more years! Yippee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was settled science yet here we have another completely unknown climate changer. Regardless, it allows them to kick the can down the road for another 15 years until they have to explain another new wonder.

The last "hiatus" lasted 26 years. We're only 16 years into this one. And even then, temps are still rising, if slower than in the 80s and 90s.

But before we start wringing our hands (or cheering) at the prospect, let's remember that a warm water pool developed in the central-to-eastern Pacific last spring, but then dissipated. Had it not dissipated, we'd be having rain in California right now and the drought would be a thing of the past AND: warming would be back in full force.

The next chance will be about a year from now. Maybe that warm pool can get it together this time.

And it IS settled science, in case you haven't been keeping up. The articles have been coming out over the last six months. Warmer SSTs in the Atlantic (caused by guess what) have intensified the trade winds that push warm water westward in the Pacific. As a result, a warm pool has developed in the western Pacific, impeding the westward flow of more warm water. That water, with no place else to go, flows below the warm pool and into the deep ocean, warming it. Winds going ashore in Asia spiral northward, intensifying the Rossby waves, causing both warmer and colder temps at mid-latitudes - anybody remember last spring's weather? So the "hiatus" AND last spring's cold snap in North America were both the product of global warming.

And the Arctic Ocean is still losing ice cover. It's going to have an effect, though right now, I'm not sure what that's going to be. Somehow, I don't think it's going to be good.

Doug

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last "hiatus" lasted 26 years. We're only 16 years into this one. And even then, temps are still rising, if slower than in the 80s and 90s.

But before we start wringing our hands (or cheering) at the prospect, let's remember that a warm water pool developed in the central-to-eastern Pacific last spring, but then dissipated. Had it not dissipated, we'd be having rain in California right now and the drought would be a thing of the past AND: warming would be back in full force.

The next chance will be about a year from now. Maybe that warm pool can get it together this time.

And it IS settled science, in case you haven't been keeping up. The articles have been coming out over the last six months. Warmer SSTs in the Atlantic (caused by guess what) have intensified the trade winds that push warm water westward in the Pacific. As a result, a warm pool has developed in the western Pacific, impeding the westward flow of more warm water. That water, with no place else to go, flows below the warm pool and into the deep ocean, warming it. Winds going ashore in Asia spiral northward, intensifying the Rossby waves, causing both warmer and colder temps at mid-latitudes - anybody remember last spring's weather? So the "hiatus" AND last spring's cold snap in North America were both the product of global warming.

And the Arctic Ocean is still losing ice cover. It's going to have an effect, though right now, I'm not sure what that's going to be. Somehow, I don't think it's going to be good.

Doug

It was settled 20 years ago and 10 years ago yet they keep finding things they never knew before. Settled my ass.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it IS settled science, in case you haven't been keeping up. The articles have been coming out over the last six months. Warmer SSTs in the Atlantic (caused by guess what) have intensified the trade winds that push warm water westward in the Pacific. As a result, a warm pool has developed in the western Pacific, impeding the westward flow of more warm water. That water, with no place else to go, flows below the warm pool and into the deep ocean, warming it.

And how long could that last? It seems to me that the deep ocean is plenty cold, and could absorb quite a lot of heat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was settled 20 years ago and 10 years ago yet they keep finding things they never knew before. Settled my ass.

Let's get specific. Just what do you think was settled 20 years ago? That would be about 1994.

At that time, I was a denier. I really hadn't thought about it, but some of my nuttier friends were into global warming, so I assumed that they were just jumping on the bandwagon and were wrong, as usual. But then I discovered there was real science behind the idea and that it all made sense, at least, most of it.

Ten years ago: what was it that was discovered ten years ago? At that time temps had stalled. The slow rise in global surface temps began in 2005, so for all anybody knew, the "hiatus" might be permanent. At that time, there simply wasn't an explanation.

But in your defense: nothing in science is ever finally and permanently settled. Any time somebody wants to reopen an old issue, or refine it a little, he is welcome to have a go at it. What you are currently reading are nothing more than nuances to the over-all theory. Just refinements. And these, we can expect will continue.

BTW: The reference made by the UM-Bot is to an article on UM. The machine is playing with itself. I would be suspicious of somebody (or some THING) that couldn't find anybody else to quote.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people do not believe in climate change. I on the other hand realize that with all things in this universe, we deal with probabilities. There is a phenomena going on, and scientists believe it will lead to global warming and ultimately global calamities. The other side believes that this is a natural occurrence in the cycle of planet earth and that just as it warms it will cool off etc. Who is right? Who knows? We are all just trying to predict the future and things to come. Then we have the 'other' group that says its aliens, or some other strange phenomena causing these climate changes.

In the end we have three blind men trying to describe an elephant. I am prone to listening to the blind man(who invented the stick, among other useful contraptions) that says, 'you probably don't want to stand in front of this object, whatever it may be, it looks to have legs that can trample you.'

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how long could that last? It seems to me that the deep ocean is plenty cold, and could absorb quite a lot of heat.

How long could it last? Maybe a long time. Like you say, the oceans can hold a lot of heat. The 50s hiatus lasted 26 years and was accompanied by drought, just as this one is. Another fifteen years? Maybe. Permanently? Probably not. Big as they are, the oceans' capacity is finite. The energy has to go somewhere.

Climate shifts in the past seem to have been driven by changes in ocean circulation. I expect that will be the cause of the next one.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people do not believe in climate change. I on the other hand realize that with all things in this universe, we deal with probabilities. There is a phenomena going on, and scientists believe it will lead to global warming and ultimately global calamities. The other side believes that this is a natural occurrence in the cycle of planet earth and that just as it warms it will cool off etc. Who is right? Who knows?

There is a statistical process called partial analysis of variance that allows one to separate a signal into components and determine how much is coming from where. That is how we know how much warming is human caused and how much is natural. The process requires a dependent variable (temperatures) and a matching set of observations for each suspected independent variable, like solar irradiance, CO2 concentrations in the air, precipitation, etc. One first creates a "full-model" that uses all the available variables and determines how much variation they explain. Then one-by-one we take out variables in different orders and see how much is left. That's how we know that CO2 is the problem. As CO2 comes mostly from human activities, we have our explanation.

Doug

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these scientific statements on global warming can be summed up in one sentence....They haven't a bloody clue.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for God's sake; last week we recorded 12 degrees Celsius in the mid of August (day time)! Stop this non sense!

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been telling us "we have less than 10 years" since the early 1990's, still waiting for that tipping point that's going to cause us all to drown.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for God's sake; last week we recorded 12 degrees Celsius in the mid of August (day time)! Stop this non sense!

And tonight where I live the temp is predicted to drop to 4 C. at mid-day it was 17 C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these scientific statements on global warming can be summed up in one sentence....They haven't a bloody clue.

We're getting a handle on it. The big picture is pretty well sketched out. Now we're just filling in the details. I think what is confusing you is denialist propaganda that tries to twist every new paper into a statement that people aren't the cause of (most) global warming. It's a deliberate dis-information campaign by fossil fuels, especially coal. As coal will have to be one of the first things we phase out, you can't really expect them to like the idea. The Koch Brothers don't think going out of business is going to work to their advantage. If I were them, I'd start thinking like T. Boone Pickens and move my money where the action is. If coal doesn't work, switch to wind or gas. Plain old economics may solve the problem without government intervention: coal is the most-expensive fuel on the market and is and always has been subject to market manipulations by people like the Kochs (The Kochs don't really like a free market - they want the govt to regulate to THEIR advantage, not to yours and mine.). Just plain old monopoly capitalism at work.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And tonight where I live the temp is predicted to drop to 4 C. at mid-day it was 17 C.

And where I live, we just broke 40 degrees C. Around here, it's easy to believe in warming.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get specific. Just what do you think was settled 20 years ago? That would be about 1994.

At that time, I was a denier. I really hadn't thought about it, but some of my nuttier friends were into global warming, so I assumed that they were just jumping on the bandwagon and were wrong, as usual. But then I discovered there was real science behind the idea and that it all made sense, at least, most of it.

Ten years ago: what was it that was discovered ten years ago? At that time temps had stalled. The slow rise in global surface temps began in 2005, so for all anybody knew, the "hiatus" might be permanent. At that time, there simply wasn't an explanation.

But in your defense: nothing in science is ever finally and permanently settled. Any time somebody wants to reopen an old issue, or refine it a little, he is welcome to have a go at it. What you are currently reading are nothing more than nuances to the over-all theory. Just refinements. And these, we can expect will continue.

BTW: The reference made by the UM-Bot is to an article on UM. The machine is playing with itself. I would be suspicious of somebody (or some THING) that couldn't find anybody else to quote.

Doug

I only know what your president said, that this is settled science. Hey, were you the one blaming the lack of warming on the lack of El Nino/La Nina? Maybe you should write these asses and 'splain things to them. Never-mind, that was the other one, Br. Cornelius.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only know what your president said, that this is settled science. Hey, were you the one blaming the lack of warming on the lack of El Nino/La Nina? Maybe you should write these asses and 'splain things to them. Never-mind, that was the other one, Br. Cornelius.

Actually, El Nino is three to four months late. A warm pool started to develop, then dissipated. The ENSO has not shifted to its El Nino phase since 1998. We THINK that's because the West Equatorial Current is too strong owing to stronger-than-usual Trade Winds which are that way because of increased SSTs in the North Atlantic caused by - you guessed it - global warming. So warming is the cause of the "hiatus." I've been waiting for you to give me that lead: thanks.

We expected drought in the American Southwest as a result of global warming. But nobody thought it would get here this soon. Around here we expected another 20-to-40 years before it really got bad. BUT: there's an opportunity for another El Nino next summer. If we get it, the drought will ease considerably. In the meantime, you don't need to plan on a boating vacation at Lake Mead. SO: if we get an El Nino pretty soon, we get a reprieve; if not, climate change is here.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if co2is the problem, why not planting trees. Why hills must stay empty in Ireland , UK , Scotland and Germany, or other parts of the world? Plants love co2, this is their food. If we love to produce co2 in our comfort then plant more trees and forests everywhere. Do not keep empty spaces for nothing!

Man, humanity is so stupid!

Edited by qxcontinuum
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been telling us "we have less than 10 years" since the early 1990's, still waiting for that tipping point that's going to cause us all to drown.

In the 70's we would have been frozen in a glacier, in the 90's we would have been drowning due to glaciers melting. today we have fifteen years before......unspecified climate change.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And tonight where I live the temp is predicted to drop to 4 C. at mid-day it was 17 C.

really? it was 21 C in Portsmouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.