Skip to comments.Global warming 'pause' was a natural fluctuation, scientists say
Posted on 07/22/2014 9:37:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Climate change skeptics have suggested a recent slowdown in the warming of the Earth is evidence that global warming is a farce and that climate models can't be trusted, but new research suggests the slowdown, or "pause," was not a significant disruption of larger trends.
The planet has been slowly warming over the last century or more. But in the last 15 years, that rate of warming has slowed. Temperatures are still high by historical standards; but between 1998 and 2013 they were slightly below what climate models had predicted. A small number of scientists and policy makers have pointed to the slowdown and discrepancy as proof that climatologists -- and the wider theory of global warming -- can't be trusted.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
What would an unnatural fluctuation look like?
Pause? The NW (Oregon and Washington) just had the coldest winter on record. Only one local news source had to guts to report that fact.
You guys, a natural fluctuation wiped out all global warming for 17 years!
That’s why we can’t see it! A natural fluctuation, you guys!
These idiots don’t realize what they just admitted.
Except that the models they rely upon for their alarmist projections failed to predict the pause.
Congrats, UPI. Goebbels would be proud of you packing that big of a propaganda lie into one sentence.
Last winter was amazingly cold across much of the country - If the media didn’t have to support the global warming agenda it would have been one of the top stories of the year.
so was the last ice age
If there is warming it’s anthropomorphic. If there is cooling it is a ‘natural’ pause.
SLIGHTLY below what climate models predicted?????? BS!
No it shouldn’t, newbie Troll
Humans should continue to focus on better/cheaper food, houses, transport and medicine - and a world free of over-mighty Government.
There were stories denying the “pause” just a while ago. Now the “scientists” rewrite again.
Someone needs to remind the professor, the “pause” is neither predicted by or meets the models used by the “man made” global warming crowd, AND remind the professor that mere corellation (it is a cycle seen before) also does not explain cause.
The REAL fact is that the earth climate has been generally warming, with fits and starts, since the end of the last great ice age, and “industrial polution” or not is likely to keep warming no matter what humans do, OR NOT, as natural forces much stronger than human input dictate.
Of course it was a natural fluctuation. The question is, why didn’t any of you or your models predict it...given that it is the same crappy models that you base your plans on for destroying the western world.
Freakin’ lying @ssclowns!
You’re on the wrong site.
Except they cannot prove it. There is no “control” earth floating in our precise orbit, with the exact population of humans, but which uses no fossil fuels and contributes ZERO co2 emissions. So “science” does not actually know and cannot definitely quantify the precise amount of natural co2. Theirs is a best guess, based on who pays the most for grants.
Global warming has returned to Michigan today with a high near 90 expected. Back into the 70s tomorrow.
Who cares about rear-view mirror climate analysis? Weather prediction science is still not a science.
You ever notice how they used to call it “man made global warming”, then a few years ago they started calling it “anthropomorphic climate change”? They found that people were skeptical that humans were making the climate warmer, so they started using “anthropomorphic” since it sounds more scientific and most people don’t know what it means, and “climate change” since it covers any kind of weather. I refuse to play the game, and continue to use “man-made global warming”.
A natural fluctuation in what they’ve always claimed is an unnatural phenomena?
That’s proof they’re lying.
“Personally I think he’s both.
“Exactly! Until they were able to concoct an excuse.
I remember when the damn ecologists tried to destroy Bundy based on their flawed concept of ecological balance - not caring that the tortoises actually relied on the manure left by Bundy’s cows.
They didn’t care about the truth. They just wanted the small-government guy destroyed.
Which is an important lesson. ‘Ecological balance’ is always a mask for Marxism - a mask for totalitarian control.
The really sad and disgusting thing is that taxpayers pay the salaries of these bogus “scientists” through grants or through college salaries. These hobos should be rounded-up and beaten with their worthless dissertations.
A bald-faced lie. It is clear the world is cooling, and these tyrants try to hold the party line. They'll still be yapping when the northern countries can no longer grow grain.
Environmentalism is best done by private owners.
I’m an “environmentalist” but have no wish to impose it on anyone else. My yard is a jungle by my choice and I love watching the wildlife. On the other hand, I’m watching the wildlife from inside an air conditioned house today.
The REAL fact (your caps) is that the Earth has been warming and cooling in a cyclic fashion for hundreds of thousands of years. The cycle is something like 100,000 years of extreme cold, followed by 10,000 - 20,000 years of warming.
The transition back to cold takes less than 100 years.
Care to guess where we are in the cycle?
Yeah, the “Mother Earth” effect. Anthropogenic is what the lefties want to label Earth. The Earth is not “alive”. They want everyone to believe, “because we are here that proves we should not be here.”
We generally call that line of thought “conservativism” too. Nature conservation and the love of it is important. I’ve never met a liberal that didn’t want to tear down an established greenbelt to “protect” something.
That is nothing other than a bald faced lie.
Earth's temperature is currently way down near the low end of its historical natural fluctuations.
Well at least they admit there is a pause now. That is a first step to sanity.
The global warmers models have never been correct. Why should we believe this?
Global warming ‘pause’ was a natural fluctuation, scientists say...as was the rise after the last ice age and as will be the next adjustment in either direction.
So far this summer is the coolest I can remember.
of course, their model predicted this.....................
takes “man-made” out of the picture....
As an anecdotal piece, Alpaca sock sales are doing great this summer. People remember the last winter and are stocking up on them for the upcoming winter months.
There are those on the left who are motivated by concern and worry about the environment, but there are also clearly those who care primarily - if not only - about using this issue as a tool to advance their agenda and personal power. The political right and center have done, IMHO, a horrible job in dealing with the politics of this issue (the environment).
What we should be pointing out is that the biggest environmental disasters, or most rapid environmental degradation that has occurred to date have occurred under socialist/communist regimes - and that the only factor that held them back from doing more harm was the fact that their system of government ruined their economies and thus prevented them from even more careless poorly orchestrated industrial growth.
We should be pointing out that under capitalism we have grown into the world power and (until recently) economic powerhouse that we have - while all the while protecting our environment and ensuring cleaner air and water than almost all (if not all) other nations in the world.
The left characterizes the right and center as people who want to pave over the world, cut down all the trees, kill all the animals, and destroy nature - and the right and center have let them do this. It’s really ridiculous IMHO. You have to fight back against propaganda, or you will be victimized by it.
The warming was a normal fluctuation too!
The climate has never ever stopped changing since this Earth has been a-round.
That isn't to say we need to stop trying to model this stuff, it just means that we can't have special rules for desirable results.
Modeling works like this: a model that illustrates the working pieces of a system and their interrelation is a descriptive model. An analogy. A is like B, at least to a degree. A model that is sufficiently rigorous to take a given system state and accurately predict how it will change over time is a predictive model. A model sufficiently rigorous to suggest a change in one of the factors in the system state that will produce a desired end state is a normative model. You cannot have a normative model that is not at least as rigorous as a predictive model.
And that's the problem here. The claim that we have knowledge of this fantastically complex system sufficient to be able to tune it by controlling CO2 emissions is that of a normative model. But the models used to develop that claim have proven insufficient to attain the status of a predictive model because they cannot predict. They need to be reworked. The conclusions offered are inherently inaccurate. This is not politics, it's a cold scientific fact.
So far, the newbie troll seems to have escaped the lightning from above. Don’t know how.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.