Quantcast
U.S. & World

Authors of key climate report struggle to explain global warming lull

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 19, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    The hoax is being exposed! Eventually all hoaxes are exposed but the damage they do in the meantime is horrific! Stunned silence in the White House and the EPA headquarters today! How much money has the government squandered on this hoax? Time to put this bad dream behind us America!

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    "natural climate fluctuations..." Uh Oh. Didn't take that one into account, did we?

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    The best argument conservatives ever make is "we just don't know, nobody knows" well do you always mess with things you don't know about? Probably. But keep your darwinism bottlenecks confined to your own family.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    1) There are a lot of retreating glaciers and underneath them old logs, tree trunks is being exposed. You might think that this might be forests from thousands of years ago. Well they are doing carbon dating on them, and they are from 400-500 years ago. It appears that the glaciers grew during the "Little Ice Age". That is a possible explanation.

    2) On the other hand, this could be a natural climate variation superimposed on man made global warming. Without the manmade global warming it would be a lot colder, but just wait until the cold spell is over and the temperature really spikes up.

    I think manmade global warming is likely correct. Throwing a lot of CO2 into the air should have a warming effect on the climate. But Mountainman, if it ends up you are right and I am wrong, we will both be happy because it will mean that Al Gore was WRONG.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @NedGrimley
    Tt's taken into account... 4 of the last 5 years were La Ninas after all which tend to be cooler than neutral or El Nino years. We also are in the weakest solar cycle in a century. Despite these things and others (volcanoes etc) the 2000s were still .2F warmer than the 1990s.

    Let's try it this way. Take a piece of paper and draw a straight line that is tilted upward in time. Now draw some random or wavy line that goes back and forth across that first line. The first line would basically be the greenhouse gas only line and the second line is what we are getting because natural cycles are still at play. Anyone who is still humoring me by doing this can see that you'll end up with periods of faster warming like 98-02 relative to the earlier 90s and periods of little warming like the last half a dozen years.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    @ redshirt007:

    It's much better for someone (conservatives) to say they don't know about an issue when they don't, than for someone else (liberals) to try to tell everyone they do know something when in reality they don't... as this latest article has shown. Much less harm is done in the first scenario.

    FYI: The world and it's environment is the family of all of us... not just liberals after they've once again been exposed with another of their extremisms. As such, things are being "confined to our own family". Quit pouting.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Sept. 19, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    I love how denialists jump on this as evidence. The authors aren't worried about the lull nor are they "struggling" to explain it. There is nothing being "exposed" nor is the idea of natural variation new to their findings. It has already been accounted for, and the real story is simply whether or not to include that explanation in the final report. On the one hand, you've got scientists who say there's no real reason to address it because it is statistically insignificant (when you have evidence dating back thousands of years that takes into account fluctuations but also sees a general trend, 12 years is merely a blip). On the other hand, you have the political pragmatists who realize that those who report on the issue will not understand the science and will misinterpret its absence as evidence of a coverup. The comments thus far seem to reinforce the assertions of the pragmatists.

  • Spider Rico Greeley, CO
    Sept. 19, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Is global warming man made? I don't know. Nobody does. The problem is that making us move away from fossil fuels to......nothing, doesn't make sense. It's great to work on alternate fuels. But until they are viable we need coal and gas. Plus, all the developing countries emit so many greenhouse gases that us lowering ours will have little to no effect overall. Furthermore, if warmers are to be believed there is no stopping the damage already done. But based on many other peer reviewed reports, it appears warmer WAY overestimated the impact of manmade greenhouse gases on temperatures.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Sept. 19, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    A significant flaw with how climate variability is being studied is the treatment of climate models as data. They are merely interpretations, subject to error and multiple interpretations. The fact that the models are wrong means the model inputs--mostly the assumptions--are suspect, as are the modeling methods.

    The logical conclusion of all this is we should NOT base profound actions on these models.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    Science is so fleeting isn't it? Everything we think we know about the climate is being proven to be completely wrong or at least very incomplete as per this article. As our grandparent's science is to us, so will our science be to our grandchildren. In the meantime, we are not experiencing any significant global warming. Experience isn't science but it is still knowledge. Sometimes experience teaches us more than any science book!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    It's gonna be fun watching all the anti-science folks sweating and sweating and sweating . .

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    According to the NOAA and their 2008 climate assesment, it is impossible to have more than 15 years without warming. We are now at that 15 year mark according to the IPCC scientists. That means their models are wrong and are missing key components to accurately predict climate cycle.

    Is it CO2 that is causing warming, is it water vapor, is it reptilian aliens terraforming the earth into something they can colonize? The answer is that we don't know, and just making random guesses gets us nowhere. In the meantime blaming CO2 and going down that rabbit hole will cost the world economy trillions, and will end up killing people because of a lack of food.

  • Pack Layton, Utah
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    @one old man, if the scientists are right, won't every body be sweating and sweating and sweating......?

  • Pack Layton, Utah
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    @OHBU, is it possible to have a political pragmatist?

  • Eliot Genola, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    It is possible to question interpretations of the data that suggest global warming is occurring or that it is man made and not be "anti-science". In fact, it is probably more anti-scientific to demand adherence to one interpretation or the other while closing the door on the possibility that you are wrong. Good scientists are naturally skeptical.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    Why would Belgium want to cook the dates to, "yield a more upward-pointing curve"?

    Seems like if your case is based on numbers, facts, and trends... carefully picking the dates to show the results you want wouldn't be necessary.

    I know we need to conserve more and more, but I don't know if we need the guilt police and the draconian measures many would like to impose on us at the alters of Global Warming.

    Seems like this is more a power grab than a real concern they can fix (for some).

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    "I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the **denialists** [emphasis mine] saying, 'Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,'" said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

    ---------------------

    When someone, like Meyers, uses such an obviously loaded and dismissive term like "denialist" to describe someone who disagrees or is even skeptical of his conclusions, it is an obvious indication of VERY unscientific defensiveness.

    Much more than the iffy "data", it is that emotion-laden kind of hyperbole and general atmosphere which I consider to be the most damning indictment of what I've come to conclude is very corrupt global warming cabal of self-aggrandizing "scientists" and power-hungry politicians (though it is hard to say there are any other type of those).

    If I had any advise to those who wish to persuade more people that we are in the process of slowly cooking ourselves, it would be to stop speaking and acting in ways that discredit their already diminished claims of scientific objectivity.

  • Walking the byways Thornbury, Vic
    Sept. 19, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    We have not had one of these arguments for at least a month, however it is good to see that same old folks with the same entrenched positions are still alive and well.

    Simple reality it is still warming, the trend for the ice caps is less volume of ice, the frozen tundra is melting,,,, From my point of view even if it is only a 50 - 50 chance that this is due to burning fossil fuel then I am all for doing more to conserve the environment so we all can enjoy a good standard of living for generations to come.

    Heavenly Father did not give us Planet "B" as he expected us to care the one he gave us!

  • canyonrunner Lehi, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    I tend to trust the findings of scientist without political agendas. Try the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). These scientists look at all possible causes of climate change, not just carbon emissions. Thier finding are considerably different than those of the United Nations. And why are carbon emissions so important to a certain political group?? Because you can't be taxed on increased solar radiation, weakening magnetic fields, or carbon sinks. Even when its not about the money, its about the money....

  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    The professor of my graduate Oceanography class in 1965 told us that after 50+ years of study of the oceans and climate he had concluded that even if he had 1,000 years of accurate data he would still only really understand a few of earth's climate patterns. His observation is as valid today as when I recorded it. As I watch the climate data not fit the predictions I conclude we are still infants in our understanding despite our powerful computers and models. That's why we have many theories and few laws in science.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    @canyonrunner
    "Try the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). "

    No thanks. The Heartland Institute is not where I'd go to get science information... the idea that that group is nonpolitical is a joke.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:32 p.m.

    @canyonrunner
    Seriously though, this is from the Heartland Institute's wikipedia page...

    "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies"

    And we wonder why their little climate group came up with something suggesting anthropogenic climate change isn't an issue. Let's just say I'm not surprised at all...

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    The chemistry and physics are clear. Holding more of the sun's energy (by way of carbon dioxide) near the earth will warm it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 23, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    To "Bebyebe" but the problem is that the scientists don't understand the carbon cycle.

    Nor do they understand how clouds are formed and at what rate they are formed, and exactly how much sunlight they reflect back into space.

    Also, as this article points out, the scientists who study the atmosphere don't really understand it's interaction with the sun.

    In other words, they are guessing and have made some bad models.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    Right now, the "skeptics" -- with their lower, conservative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity -- are closer to both the observed conditions, and to the IPCC's revised-down estimates of ECS, than the wild-eyed lunatics (James Hansen, Al Gore) who predict catastrophic climate change.

    For those who agree with the latter: Why do you deny science?

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    When one of the guys on the IPCC (responsible for deciding which analyses to include and emphasize, and which ones to discard) identifies himself as "un militant ecologique," I think, "yeah, *there's* "un honnete courtier."

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    One needs only to see the retreat of glaciers globally, rising sea levels and the earlier spring and later autumnal migration of wildlife to know that something is changing. The anthropogenic question may be unsettled, but putting millions of tone of carbon into the atmosphere cannot be helpful.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 24, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Mountanman "Science is so fleeting isn't it?"

    Science itself has never been fleeting except when religions have tried to silence it, for political reasons. Science survived and bloomed in a society free to think. Science is not words etched in stone, nor should it be, it changes as science is able to understand things better, and technology advances, this is nothing different.

    Funny thing I've noticed among the anti science groups, is they use sciences and theories that fit their views of the world, and discard any science that might conflict with their religion or political party. This buffet style science, didn't work during the dark ages for those loosing their power of authority to science either.

    This changes nothing in the over whelming evidence, that changes are afoot.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 24, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" actually sience has been abused by the non-religious to commit great atrocities. Hitler used the science of eugenics and other bad science to justify himself.

    You should look at Al Gore and his followers, and how they "use sciences and theories that fit their views of the world, and discard any science that might conflict with their religion or political party."

    How often do we hear AGW alarmists say that the debate is over, and that there is a consensus. Scientific principels are not resoloved on a consensus, but by statistical analysis and repeatablity.

    The earth's climate has always been changing, but we have yet to figure out how to model everything.