Posted on 05/28/2013 4:50:46 PM PDT by Lorianne
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.
"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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
They should just put the most recent data in their computer models, and it will predict the cooling, and what will happen next.
Climate Change is effecting Climate Change. There. Answered.
The issue is not that there is an unexpected “respite”. It is that the models have been proven demonstrably flawed and those who are modeling should have the good sense to start from ground zero. When my model says hockey stick pointed up and the reality turned out to be hockey stick pointed level, then my model is NO GOOD.
If I had built stochastic models as accurate as this, my boss would have told me to quit wasting time building useless models.
The Hopium has run out.
The word should be theorized. So this is all originally based on the understanding of the atmosphere and climate of one scientist in the 1890's. It probably seemed logical based on some observations inside a closed glass chamber in this fellow's Stockholm lab. But in the almost infinite complexity of a planetary atmosphere it is patently not observed and is therefore disproved. It's hard to admit one is wrong, especially when a professional career, reputation, and large sums of money are involved.
Regardless of WHAT is slowing down climate change, they HAVE to throw out all of their ERRONEOUS PROJECTIONS. They missed this and it will affect future trends as well (cooling? heating but not from as high a baseline as anticipated?).
The old projections are as worthless as last year’s football gambling pools.
There appears to be a slowdown in public interest in “climate change”, or “global warming” — at least to the extent that Google searches represent public interest in a topic. (Unfortunately, that can just mean that most people have made up their mind, and are not allowing new facts to interfere with their opinion.)
According to “Google trends” Google searches on “climate change” peaked in 2009. The number of searches is now only 32% of that peak level. Similarly, searches on “global warming” are down to only 17% of their 2007 peak.
If you want to check this out for yourself, go to http://www.google.com/trends/ and type in whatever search terms you’re interested in.
Gaps in their understanding ... let that sink in ...
Gaps in their understanding ...
No need to explain. The mechanism of climate AND weather is far too complex for scientists to explain in full. Too many variables. The Earth is too big. It’s impossible to get all the data into their models. Their models don’t model the real world - they just model the scientists’ expectations.
Rush Limbaugh said during one of his radio shows that the people and institutions behind the global warming hysteria told you more than any of the science behind it. The people pushing the climate change agenda are known Leftists of long standing. It’s nothing more than a political power grab of the first order.
One thing we know now that we didn’t know before all this got rolling was that scientists in white coats can be bought (with research dollars) just like everyone else.
That article is from Forbes and was posted here on FR. Excellent.
It ain’t science when you decide on the result you want and cull the data accordingly, then tell everyone that the science is settled.
They're not trying to figure out the gaps in their understanding, they're trying to figure out what's wrong with climate change ...
Gaps in their understanding
In a related story, government scientists involved in a hugely funded and extremely lucrative study are attempting to explain the current paucity of unicorns.
A real head-scratcher.
Clearly, more funding is needed.
If you factor in their data was COOKED and MANIPULATED to begin with it’s not hard at all to explain why they failed to explain the cooling trend.
The lack of evidence of climate change is attributed to.... climate change.
P.S. It’s sneaky that way.
Most? Really, "most"? We have been fed a constant load of BS that ALL of the climate models were in agreement on warming. Now it is most?
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.