Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,279
11,380
113
Low Earth Orbit
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.

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first showed in the 1890s how man-made carbon dioxide, from coal for instance, traps heat in the atmosphere. Many of the exact effects are still unknown.

Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.

UN PANEL SEEKS EXPLANATION

A rapid rise in global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s - when clean air laws in developed nations cut pollution and made sunshine stronger at the earth's surface - made for a compelling argument that human emissions were to blame.

The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel's chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

According to Pachauri, temperature records since 1850 "show there are fluctuations. They are 10, 15 years in duration. But the trend is unmistakable."

The IPCC has consistently said that fluctuations in the weather, perhaps caused by variations in sunspots or a La Nina cooling of the Pacific, can mask any warming trend and the panel has never predicted a year-by-year rise in temperatures.

Experts say short-term climate forecasts are vital to help governments, insurers and energy companies to plan.

Governments will find little point in reinforcing road bridges over rivers, for instance, if a prediction of more floods by 2100 doesn't apply to the 2020s.

A section of a draft IPCC report, looking at short-term trends, says temperatures are likely to be 0.4 to 1.0 degree Celsius (0.7-1.8F) warmer from 2016-35 than in the two decades to 2005. Rain and snow may increase in areas that already have high precipitation and decline in areas with scarcity, it says.

EXCEPTIONS AND CHALLENGES

Pachauri said climate change can have counter-intuitive effects, like more snowfall in winter that some people find hard to accept as side-effects of a warming trend. An IPCC report last year said warmer air can absorb more moisture, leading to heavier snowfall in some areas.

A study by Dutch experts this month sought to explain why there is now more sea ice in winter. It concluded melted ice from Antarctica was refreezing on the ocean surface - this fresh water freezes more easily than dense salt water.

Some experts challenged the findings.

"The hypothesis is plausible I just don't believe the study proves it to be true," said Paul Holland, an ice expert at the British Antarctic Survey.

Concern about climate change is rising in some nations, however, opinion polls show. Extreme events, such as Superstorm Sandy that hit the U.S. east coast last year, may be the cause. A record heatwave in Australia this summer forced weather forecasters to add a new dark magenta color to the map for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129F).
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
On Christmas Eve (a date deliberately chosen because there were no newspapers to report it) the usually global warming-obsessed Met Office of Britain reluctantly admitted that the world has actually been cooling since 1998.

I still remember that newspaper headline in the lefty, global warming-obsessed Independent newspaper in the year 2000 which said "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past".
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
I still remember that newspaper headline in the lefty, global warming-obsessed Independent newspaper in the year 2000 which said "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past".
Lefties are always right, just ask them.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

That's the now discredited climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia.
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Any climate model not considering the electric basis of climate is junk science. Cheaply mass produced science designed to meet the cheaply mass produced needs of the cheaply mass produced consumer.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
I read this book not too long ago,

The Sun's Hearbeat

And as Bob Berman explains, in the last decade the Sun entered a period of lowest activity since we've been making detailed observations. This has resulted in a decrease in solar output and reduced the amount of warming from additional greenhouse gases.

There's no way to know what the long term trend is going to be or if we're entering a repeat of the Maunder Minimum that caused the Little Ice Age.

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.

I'm in this category.

I do get a kick out of these "long range" plans though. The assumption seems to be that humanity, taken as an aggregate, is capable of making long range plans. We aren't. We are no more capable than a yeast colony of changing our behaviour. We will coninue to expand as quickly as we can and use (or waste) all available resources until such time as a natural feedback mechanism--e.g. resource depletion, airborne ebola--constrains our growth. It is what we are programmed to do.It's an enduring illusion that humans are rational beings.

The main reason the skeptics deny climate change is because it challenges values. The deniers are almost exclusively on the political right--that's telling right there. What the so-called deniers are denying is not climate change itself but the implied policy remedies to climate change--one-world government; international regulation of capital; centrally planned wealth distribution; unrepresentative technocracy. These things are far more threatening to many than some potential nastiness with the weather fifty years down the road.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,279
11,380
113
Low Earth Orbit
Probably more along the lines that they now realize that they were duped.... Except the hardcore true-believers, they'll never flinch
Duped. That leaves another couple of generations who will never trust Govt and will never vote again leaving voting wide open.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Our own CanCon members are?

Yes.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,279
11,380
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm in this category.

I do get a kick out of these "long range" plans though. The assumption seems to be that humanity, taken as an aggregate, is capable of making long range plans. We aren't. We are no more capable than a yeast colony of changing our behaviour. We will coninue to expand as quickly as we can and use (or waste) all available resources until such time as a natural feedback mechanism--e.g. resource depletion, airborne ebola--constrains our growth. It is what we are programmed to do.It's an enduring illusion that humans are rational beings.

The main reason the skeptics deny climate change is because it challenges values. The deniers are almost exclusively on the political right--that's telling right there. What the so-called deniers are denying is not climate change itself but the implied policy remedies to climate change--one-world government; international regulation of capital; centrally planned wealth distribution; unrepresentative technocracy. These things are far more threatening to many than some potential nastiness with the weather fifty years down the road.
When you come to realize that climate change was all part of magnetic pole shifts that dragged jetstreams and ocean currents along for the ride, you'll ditch the "it's a lull" trip.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Probably more along the lines that they now realize that they were duped.... Except the hardcore true-believers, they'll never flinch

And the ones that are so invested in it. Reminds me of Robert McNamara and Vietnam... it was bound to fail but he just couldn't stop it.

I'm in this category.

.


How many bank transfers will stop the climate from changing?

 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
When you come to realize that climate change was all part of magnetic pole shifts that dragged jetstreams and ocean currents along for the ride, you'll ditch the "it's a lull" trip.[/FONT]


I could say the pole shift and the shrinking atmosphere are somewhat catastrophic. Ive been reading a bit of EU geology lately, it seems these types of somewhat catastrophic er ah events/shifts/changes can and do result in mountains for example. The Amazon rain forest is no older than six thousand years. The climate event of 3500BC which resulted in the Sahara desert also produced the Amazon rainforest they say.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,279
11,380
113
Low Earth Orbit
At the same time the Sahara was created on the other side of the globe.

During the last ice age the magnetic north pole sat in the middle of James Bay.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
When you come to realize that climate change was all part of magnetic pole shifts that dragged jetstreams and ocean currents along for the ride, you'll ditch the "it's a lull" trip.[/FONT]

Then someone would have to explain to me why adding CO2 to the atmosphere didn't cause heating. From a radiation physics perspective, that's like turning on the oven and nothing happening.

And the ones that are so invested in it. Reminds me of Robert McNamara and Vietnam... it was bound to fail but he just couldn't stop it.



How many bank transfers will stop the climate from changing?

[/FONT]

We are not going to stop climate change from happening. Oil sands are going big time. Natural gas is going big time. Fracking is going big time.

On the plus side, since we won't be averting it, we'll know in a few decades if the proponents or the skeptics were right. :lol: