Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
REUTERS ^ | April 16, 2013 | Reuters Correspondent Alister Doyle

Posted on 04/16/2013 8:46:53 AM PDT by Moseley

Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.

Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments' willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; slowdown
Here's a thought: Maybe they were wrong?
1 posted on 04/16/2013 8:46:53 AM PDT by Moseley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Moseley
NOTE that REUTERS requires an excerpt. For the full article -- including the hogwash trying to explain away the facts -- you have to go to: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
2 posted on 04/16/2013 8:47:55 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The only problem with the gorebal warming fiasco is that if they pray for things to heat up nothing will happen.

God doesn’t listen to or grant the prayerful requests of fools whose only goal is to ruin civilization.

On the other hand, Satan listens to them as he listens to the entire political miasma. Any time their wishes are granted it’s strictly by accident.


3 posted on 04/16/2013 8:50:08 AM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I guess they are searching for some anomoly so they can continue their mission to seek funds to further support their theory.

I give Rush credit on this when he said consensus is not settled science. Of course unless it is something from the left. If we say Radical Islam is an enemy and severe threat to the western world, the left says that is not settled regardless of the consensus saying it is.


4 posted on 04/16/2013 8:50:46 AM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

One can only imagine what Sheldon Cooper would say about the climate clowns.


5 posted on 04/16/2013 8:50:49 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

“Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years. “

They have no idea why it “slowed” but they expect a revival soon. Got it.


6 posted on 04/16/2013 8:53:16 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

It was the Ocean, see, the ocean, it swallowed up all the heat, then, no, it was the aerosols from Chinese power plants, yeah, that’s the ticket, it was the Chinese, see, the Chinese did it, with all their power plants. And it’s worse, see. So now I think I got, we got it right this time, see?


7 posted on 04/16/2013 8:57:11 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
They are expecting a double peak, or a double-ended hockey-stick, or whatever, any day now...


8 posted on 04/16/2013 8:57:12 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Here’s another: Maybe they aren’t scientists.


9 posted on 04/16/2013 9:01:46 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Global Warming scientists struggle to keep the lie going....


10 posted on 04/16/2013 9:02:34 AM PDT by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
consensus is not ... science

When all the astrologists and theologians in the Vatican agree, am I to believe some obscure Pisan mathematician who says that the earth whirls around its poles and the circles around the sun, a proposition that is both against the evidence of my senses and contrary to Holy Scripture?

11 posted on 04/16/2013 9:03:37 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I am sure you have a theory about whether or not you should so why not just spell it out.

Climate change in my book is correct, there is and always has been climate change. Now, whether or not it is man made I have my severe doubts, after all, man was not on the planet a million years ago now was he?


12 posted on 04/16/2013 9:11:08 AM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
It's

Bush's

Sarah Palin's

The Tea Party's

Right-Wing Extremist's

The GOP's

not our

fault!

13 posted on 04/16/2013 9:11:39 AM PDT by eCSMaster (Palin was correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

No real scientist is ever dismayed by new data, nor does he feel threatened by the prospect of having to modify a theory. Political activists, however, are.


14 posted on 04/16/2013 9:14:08 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

It’s funny how they get so confused, it’s because they go about it backwards.

agenda->”solution”->conclusions->theory->evidence


15 posted on 04/16/2013 9:16:19 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
When all the astrologists and theologians in the Vatican agree, am I to believe some obscure Pisan mathematician who says that the earth whirls around its poles and the circles around the sun, a proposition that is both against the evidence of my senses and contrary to Holy Scripture?

I know you were engaging in sarcasm to ridicule today's Global Warming Chicken Littles, but to be fair, it was primarily the 'scientists' of the day that were going after Galileo. They were 'schooled' in the Ptolemaic model of Astronomy, and they didn't like this upstart telling them that they were wrong. They were the ones who leaned on the Pope to tell him that he needed to slap down this 'infidel'. And no, Holy Scripture doesn't say anything about the Earth's place in the Solar System. It tells us that 'He hangeth the Earth on nothing' (perceptive insights for someone writing some 4000 years ago), but the primary focus of this Book is to tell us about a God of love and justice reaching out to lost mankind - and it doesn't share a lot of insights regarding physics.

16 posted on 04/16/2013 9:25:44 AM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Climate scientist, "x+2=5, therefore manmade global warming"

Critics, "We just examined 'x' and quantified it as being 5"

Climate scientist "x+2-2=5, therfore manmade global warming"

17 posted on 04/16/2013 9:27:56 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

As Michael Crichton put it in his “Aliens Cause Global Warming” lecture, “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”


18 posted on 04/16/2013 9:33:29 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Here's a thought: Maybe they were wrong?

There comes a point in the evolution of any scientific hoax when the perpetrators have too much invested to ever feel safe admitting the truth of what they've done. Besides, well earned though it may be, the destruction of their professional reputations would be unbearable. Most of them will cling to this fraud to their dying breath.

19 posted on 04/16/2013 9:57:55 AM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Cid
Actually, the Vatican-Galileo controversy is a lot more complicated than the simple morality tale of a conflict between superstition and science that silly people like Bertolt Brecht make it out to be. A good precis can be found in Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers. Harvard Astrophysicist turned historian of science, Owen Gingerich in The Eye of Heaven gives a modern scientist's perspective. Ptolemaic astronomy would be seen as a better physical theory in modern terms. What Copernicus accomplished was little more than a change in coordinates, and to less convenient coordinate system.

To complicate things further, Koestler suggests that the Jesuits were convinced Copernicans by the time of Galileo kerfuffle, but wanted to introduce Copernicanism in a manner that wouldn't cause a fuss or get anyone excommunicated. They saw Galileo's needlessly confrontational style as counterproductive. There is something to this since De Revolutionibus had been out for 80 years without being placed in the Index until Galileo raised a ruckus.

My little analogy was for the edification of those whose minds are incapable of Jesuitical subtlety.

20 posted on 04/16/2013 10:04:31 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
I was simply trying to point out the limitations of appeal to authority, not commenting on the validity of any particular theory. Personally, I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that increases in CO2, taken in isolation, will most likely raise the temperature of the earth. I also believe that activists and hack scientists are exaggerating both amount of increase and the consequences. I am not at all sure whether of not a small increase in temperatures would be a good thing or bad thing, on net.
21 posted on 04/16/2013 10:12:23 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Our precious bodily fluids are absorbing the heat and it is destroying them!

22 posted on 04/16/2013 10:53:03 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
"I am not at all sure whether of not a small increase in temperatures would be a good thing or bad thing, on net."

Bingo! Until we can absolutely define what the ideal, overall average, earth temperature would be and whether we are currently getting closer to or further from it; how can any sane person argue and campaign for a change in conditions that MIGHT affect some aspect of a multitude of factors thought to be interrelated on determining the world's climate?

23 posted on 04/16/2013 11:18:16 AM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head

Good for whom? A person living in the Congo might want to turn the thermostat down a bit, a person living in Siberia might want to turn it up.


24 posted on 04/16/2013 11:33:09 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Longer growing seasons > shorter growing seasons...


25 posted on 04/16/2013 11:34:08 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
"Good for whom?"

Exactly! You are getting the point.

26 posted on 04/16/2013 3:12:34 PM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Reuters! Doubt is gaining momentum.


27 posted on 04/16/2013 9:25:39 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Fog removed:

Propagandists are struggling to explain the total lack ofclimate change that has exposed manipulation in their data and exposes a lack of their imaginary global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on misrepresenting century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would stop around 1934. Propagandists are now intent on figuring out the cause of the 79 years of continuous cooling and determining whether the cooling will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Getting this scam right is essential for the short and long-term disruption of businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many propagandists say they’re praying for a revival of warming in coming years.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.

Nonexistant economic growth and the total lack of warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a strupid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels to fairy dust.


28 posted on 04/17/2013 12:20:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson