Skip to comments.The Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up
Posted on 10/30/2009 11:56:22 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
Two years ago, a United Nations scientific panel won the Nobel Peace Prize after concluding that global warming is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by man.
Then came a development unforeseen by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC: Data suggested that Earth's temperature was beginning to drop.
Global climate models did not account for a drop in global temperatures since 2006, but climate scientists believe the lower temperatures are temporary. That has reignited debate over what has become scientific consensus: that climate change is due not to nature, but to humans burning fossil fuels. Scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming cite the cooling as evidence for their case. Those who do believe in man-made warming dismiss the cooling as a blip triggered by fleeting changes in ocean currents; they predict greenhouse gases will produce rising temperatures again soon.
The reality is more complex. A few years of cooling doesn't mean that people aren't heating up the planet over the long term. But the cooling wasn't predicted by all the computer models that underlie climate science. That has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect.
"There is a lot of room for improvement" in the models, says Mojib Latif, a climate scientist in Germany and co-author of a paper predicting the planet will cool for perhaps a decade before starting to warm again -- a long-term trend he attributes to greenhouse-gas emissions. "You need to know what you can believe and can't believe from the models."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Yes the models are not perfect but let’s error on the side of taxing so we can have money... /s
“Models that don’t account for the sun or for water vapor —
.........ARE A F’ING FRAUD!!
“Two years ago...Then came a development unforeseen...Earth’s temperature was beginning to drop.”
What are they talking about? Earth’s temperature hasn’t been warming for more than 10 years. We knew that 2 years ago. So whether or not it has been cooling since 1998, it definitely hasn’t been warming, which itself runs counter to the predictions of the highly esteemed members of the international warming conspiracy cabal, including those who won Nobel Prizes.
Speaking of which, by the way, we all know by now Nobel Peace Prizes are as easy to win as it is to say, “I agree with you, my dear leftist overlords.”
Except that the predicted rise in sunspot count starting in 2007 never happened.
The models didn’t see a blip in ocean currents, wonder what else the missed? The oceans surface is mostly water, hmmmmmm..., maybe we will get it right several decades from now. So lets not spend anything on it till we get it right.
This debate is really going to heat up as this cooling cycle gets longer and longer, colder and colder. Listening to the globalist warmers go through mental contortions to explain how the earth is cooling when it should be warming is enough to warm my heart on a cold day. Creative Lying 101 must be a prerequisite for upper-level, liberal science classes.
The general trend is the important thing. It all stays within extremely well defined boundaries.
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Oh...then it follows logically that a few years of heating doesn't mean that people aren't cooling downthe planet over the long term.
This article is so full of left-wing assumptions I can’t even read it.
I’ve got man-made eyeball warming.
But regardless, the empirically-measured change in the amount of energy radiating away from the Earth as a function of changes in sea surface temperature totally falsifies the IPCC climate models (and incidentally falsifies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis—utter falsification, not simply invalidation of the alleged "proof.")
Roger that. Will someone please tell these “scientists” (so-called but most of them are UN connected bureaucrats) that the cause is that huge flaming ball of gas in the sky is the cause.
That huge flaming ball of gas in Nashville is only exgaserbating the hysteria (while he piles up the dough).
I can't believe he can say that with a straight face!
The earth heats up, the earth cools down...
THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE
(Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria (translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock) Dr. Abdussamatov is featured on page 140 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming. Also see Related Links below.)
Key Excerpts: Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is not guilty and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. [...] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. [...] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. [...] We should fear a deep temperature drop not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
The “well defined boundaries”, as we close-in on 2010, would have the current activity nearing a maximum; instead, the actual current level is very nearly “no sunspots whatsoever”.
Fake but accurate.
It's faith based science !
"This is pioneering work," says Mr. Latif, one of the authors of the German paper. "I won't say our forecast will be correct."
But let's bet our economic future on it anyway.
These liberal idiots always try to claim the “unexplained downturn” is still caused by global warming. I just read a new study that now explains the Dalton Minimum time, which was a 40 year time of very few sunspots and very cold temperatures. The study authors now believe all of the cold people experienced from 1809 onward was the result of one large known volcano, and some “unknown” volcano that put 50% again as much pollution into the atmosphere. They don’t even attempt to find this volcano.
I guess scientists can go back hundreds of years of non-recorded temperatures, but can’t go back 200 years of huge volcanic explosions.
Stupid Attempt to Discredit Lack of Sunspots:
hey! you just solved the global warming crisis.
what we need is a good, massive volcanic eruption or two.
Example: In the long term, real estate prices and stock prices will rise. Guaranteed. Now, Genius, tell us: what will they do in the next twenty trading days?
Might there be a means to modulate the temperature however we choose by stirring up the currents in a certain way?
Especially if no one now living will be around to verify the long-term projections! ;-)
at the end of the article, is the “money quote”
disagreements aren’t unusual in a nascent science. “I don’t think anybody is surprised that we’re going to get one model that suggests it’s going to cool and another that suggests it’s going to warm,” says Vicky Pope, a scientist at the Hadley Center, the U.K. institute where the research for the British paper was done. “That’s consistent with where we are with the science.”
oooookay....its a “nascent science.” this is a way of saying its a new science. what is new? not trying to predict the weather. people have been doing that for years, centuries even. what is new is the coupling of the
various observations with computer models. that’s the new part.
scientists making up or distorting data (as in the tree ring studies used to generate the “hockey stick graph”) to further their own careers is not new
politicians using science to further their own agendas is not new
but computer models that only those with “super computers” can feed data and “crunch” numbers with....that’s new. and, of course, those resources are ultimately allocated by governments who own the “super computers.”
and that is new. and the forced conclusions....the “scientific consensus” generated by the selective allocation of grants is new...
and this, is not new, but difficult to explain:
“It’s sort of counterintuitive.”
so is “relativity theory” and “quantum mechanics” but they are quantitative and can be checked by experiments
but climate science is not....we just cannot design an experiment and isolate a portion of the earth and change the weather to test the theory....
what that means is that it is not “science.”
instead, it is a belief system, a religion, and is reliant upon believers and their passion.