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 ...
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.