Posted on 02/26/2015 2:08:09 PM PST by zeestephen
It appears as though internal variability has offset warming over the last 15 or so years...Eventually we expect temperatures to ‘catch up,’ but it may take longer than five years for that to happen...
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“Scientists now know”
Uhh if they’re so certain, then why do they use these words and phrases???.
may persist
it appears
good chance
odds that
whenever
could mean
could occur
this all suggests
very possible
could continue
we expect
it appears
eventually we expect
may take longer
Such terms are certainly don’t reflect metric units based on conclusive results of repeatable scientific method-based experimentation.
Proof that the article is regurgitated propaganda. There's no point in paying attention to anything the article says.
Liberal sponsored genocide called by a more benevolent sounding name will eliminate us much sooner than global warming or climate change does.
“That internal variability is found in the natural cycles of temperature change that occur over years or even decades in the oceans, like El Niño and La Niña. There are others, like the “Atlantic multidecadal oscillation” and the “Pacific decadal oscillation,” which Steinman said are leading culprits for the warming slowdown.”
How can you write a computer model that DOESN’T include those?!?!?
Or in layman's terms, just slightly greater odds than flipping a coin.
The largest fraud ever perpetuated.
Blaming CO2 (.04% of atmosphere) for catastrophic climate disrution that is not happening.
If you want something to worry about, we’re overdue for an Ice Age.
Figure out how to survive that.
Warm I can deal with, freezing, not so much.
The earth has spent more of its billions of years covered in ice than like it is now.
Sun cycles. When the source of all of our heat cycles down, we get cold. Sometimes very cold. Imagine Chicago under 5 miles of ice.
Article’s expert sez global warming will accelerate after a 5-year hiatus starting today.
The much beloved and non=controversial Michael E. Mann is the second author on the article!! I have a feeling that it will not take long for the flaws in this Science article to emerge. One clue is that it took 6 months for it to get accepted.
Glad I got the full explanation at Free Republic instead of having my ears carved off by a pathological Leftist.
That's actually fairly disturbing news.
From 2000-2010 we went up 22 PPM.
That's a 20% increase in one decade.
Has that trend increased from 2011-2014?
Should we comforted by the fact that we are still dealing with parts-per-million?
The 200 Gt of natural CO2 produced per year (mainly fall and winter) is also absorbed for the most part in spring and summer. In the case of the 8Gt or so (4% of 200) that man produces, almost all of it stays. But nature obviously does not know or care about the difference, it is all CO2
What happens is that nature tries to bring the current 400ppm back down to maybe 300ppm which would be short term equilibrium. To do that, nature absorbs a bunch into the ocean. At that point some is sequestered there (precipitates into some form and falls to the bottom). So in a net calculation, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is all manmade and would be even higher without the ocean absorption.
If man were not around CO2 would have risen naturally due to warming after the Little Ice and prior warming (e.g. Medieval Warm Period) with a lag. But that would amount to a small increase, 5-10 ppm maybe, not the 120 ppm we have seen and not the 2-3 ppm rise per year we measure.
Headline couldn’t be more inaccurate and misleading.
The real problem is going to be if there is any period of warming these people will really go crazy and ruin society even more.
Isn’t it interesting how idiots like Obama give speeches and tell crowds how they are experiencing first hand the effects of warming? When the whole point of this article is why there hasn’t been any warming.
I think it was a Simpsons episode where they said that dumb people use big words to make themselves look smart. Hmm. Internal variability? Sounds like a theorem in calculus. I’m sure one of these global warming con artists was looking for a new term and came up with internal variability and saying, “yeah, there’s our new global warming definition.” The low information idiot intelligensia lefties hear the term and say that is so “nuanced” and open up their checkbooks and Al Gore and Greenpeace tout it and go laughing all the way to the bank with these idiots’ money.
I knew we hadn’t heard the last of that lie even after NASA admitted it was an error.
Is that what your models tell you? ROTFLMAO
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Re: “Imagine Chicago under 5 miles of ice.”
I live in Seattle and have frequent conversations with Extreme Greens.
I usually quiet the room by saying, “I like global warming. 15,000 years ago we’d be having this conversation under 1 mile of solid ice.”
The best one is “Oswald Bates” from “In Living Color”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruRYa5KLVNU
About 5% but still nontrivial. We can take comfort in the fact that during the same decade the global temperature did nothing statistically significant. A bunch of new CO2, but no new warming. This is despite the fact the solar activity just left the modern maximum and fell around 2007. So it wasn't the sun cooling off because that is too recent and there is a couple year (at least) lag between sun and average temperature (that's because the sun warms the ocean for the most part).
Should we comforted by the fact that we are still dealing with parts-per-million?
Compared to parts per thousand of water vapor? Yes.
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.