1
34

[–] Caboose_Calloway 1 point 34 points (+35|-1) ago 

From the abstract linked in the article:

Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.

So the scientists are saying "There is no such thing as hiatus. Global warming is going full steam ahead." and the conservative blog is interpreting that as "See no hiatus, therefore no global warming."

2
1

[–] totes-mah-voats 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

You should check out the video I posted somewhere on these comments. I don't want to get accused of spamming, so I'll refrain from posting it twice. If more people saw the very significant science-based concerns about the anthropogenic climate change argument, then we could have a more honest debate. Unfortunately, the issue has become so politicized that science has taken a back seat.

1
0

[–] escapetomars 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

When "scientists" are referred to in the global warming debate, what's usually meant is - people with science degrees who we confirmed were fanatic supporters of anthropogenic climate change before we quoted anything they said.

0
0

[–] Level_Cannon ago 

No, scientists who are referenced in global warming debate often have peer-reviewed studies on the topic at hand. This has been an issue for decades now and the science hasn't been proven false yet. Sure, there have been mistakes and badly calibrated readings but even with those corrections the model and outlook is not looking good.

4
0

[–] TheFerretman 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

It's scientifically sound -- the hiatus is nearing 20 (or 22 depending on how you count it) years now.

0
1

[–] totes-mah-voats 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think most people start it after the '98 El Niño, meaning we are at year 16 or 17. Either way, our temperature data doesn't effectively measure climate, so the fact that this conversation is even necessary is a little depressing.

0
0

[–] Level_Cannon ago 

I linked it on another comment above but the study below demonstrates an increase in subsurface temperatures which would explain why there was a pause in surface temperatures observed.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655

1
7

[–] Vanwe 1 point 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes and no. I would say that it certainly shows that our understanding of what was happening and why is incomplete. There are various theories as to why this is happening, but none that have convinced me.

It however does not invalidate the 100 or so years of observed warming prior to this. It is also worth noting that the NOAA has come out and said the surface measurements were incorrect. Noteworthy that it does not say the satellite measurements were incorrect.

1
1

[–] harebrane 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

I suspect what we're seeing right now is simply that all the added heat has simply caused the atmosphere to begin convecting much more energetically. This would cause portions of the surface to actually cool noticeably even as the entire system warmed even more rapidly and became increasingly violent.

0
0

[–] Vanwe ago 

That is possible, but that's part of the problem. There are several possible explanations for the phenom, but none that are really being tested(to my knowledge at least). But to my knowledge the only explanation given is either, the data is not conclusive to deny our previous conclusions, or that the newer data is "interpreted incorrectly".

0
0

[–] Level_Cannon ago 

There is actually a NASA study showing that during the "Hiatus" the subsurface temperatures in the ocean increased dramatically and would explain where the heat went.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655

0
0

[–] Vanwe ago 

I remain unconvinced. Looking at the first chart from the official argo website, there is a relatively dramatic time of increasing surface temperature (the cyan at the bottom) during the 60's. This does not match up with with the observed atmospheric temperature during the 60's, which had a mostly downward trend.

This is just from a very quick review of the data.

3
0

[–] 3n7r0py 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Total bullshit.

0
2

[–] GenevieveJenkins 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Nice evidence you used there.

1
-1

[–] 3n7r0py 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Shut the fuck up.

1
4

[–] technologyisnatural 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Here's a graph of the data, check for yourself ...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Red is the global temperature.

Blue is the trend (note that it is flat)

Green is the CO2.

CO2 is increasing, but the temperature during the past 18+ years has been flat. None of the IPCC climate models predicted this "pause" in global warming. This has caused some doubts about whether the current climate models can give us good information about what will happen in the future.

1
4

[–] MedicalMountainGoat 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

It looks like you may have nitpicked your data sources. The data you selected was 'RSS MSU lower tropics global mean temperature' which does show a flat trend. However if we look at the USH NSSTC data for the same we see an upward trend. I'm definitely not an expert in this stuff though, can you explain to me why you chose the data that you did?

1
2

[–] totes-mah-voats 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

All the data used by the IPCC is nitpicked. We have a childish understanding of climate, and this politicized debate is severely inhibiting our capacity to seriously conduct research.

0
2

[–] technologyisnatural 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I picked RSS because it shows the problem most clearly. But the problem of the "pause" is discussed in the mainstream literature. Usually they use the term "hiatus" if you want to search. Every year, the discrepancy between the observed global temperature and the IPCC projections grows. There are dozens of papers purporting to explain the "pause", but they can't all be right. You don't have to "deny" climate change to ask for a little more honesty about what is known and what is not. Big changes are being requested from every one of us, so I don't think it is out of line to ask for transparency.

0
0

[–] boot13 ago 

PedantoMan says: 'cherry-picked' not 'nitpicked'.

0
1

[–] escapetomars 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This is accurate.

2
1

[–] totes-mah-voats 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

Check out this video. The whole "settled debate" argument is preposterous, especially given the red flags raised here. The show host is pretty annoying and it starts out a little confusing, but Carlson gets into a groove pretty quickly and it comes together. Also, he misspeaks at 28:15. The red refers to temperature, not CO2 (just look at the graph's legend before he zooms in).

https://vimeo.com/11798741

1
3

[–] xtrm 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

this is related and has some educated opinion in it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

it's 5 minutes well spent watching it.

0
0

[–] Agedwithaview ago 

For what it's worth:

During the '70's, the published forecasts on the rate of global warming suggested that it would take as long as 500 years before all polar ice would be gone. I have watched these forecasts shorten periodically for 40 years. (As a side note, I own property in central FL about an hour west of Daytona; have fingers crossed that I might live long enough to see my back yard become beach property and the current gator population replaced with saltwater crocodiles.)

An article that sheds light on the "confusion" about global warming is a press release showing that the oil industry (specifically Exxon) knew of the impact of CO2 on climate as early as 1981. This is the time frame of the start of funding of "denier science" research.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fossil-fuel-company-deception-climate-warming-exxon-0511#.VasKp2xRFol

Another interesting observation, I was watching a show on the science channel (may have been one of the history channels) talking about the future colonization of mars. One topic, simplest way to heat up environment of mars, showed an experiment using a couple of clear 2 liter soda bottles. Both bottles were filled about a third with plain water and placed in direct sunlight. After short time temp was taken showing that both bottles had identical temp. CO2 was then added to one of the bottles - if memory is correct, they used one of those carbonation tablets - bottle with increased CO2 was returned to position next to untouched bottle. After short period, temp was taken again, CO2 bottle was now 10 degrees F warmer than the untouched bottle. (The show went on to discuss how little robots could be sent to mars to create CO2 from the existing soil on the planet.)

Lastly, you may want to do some research on why CFC's were banned in the late 70's - early 80's as the propellant gas in most non food spray items. CFC's and other chemicals still in use take a very long time to break down.... I am guessing that most of the readers were born with there always being a "hole" in the ozone layer. There was a time when this was not the case.

My punch line - the current generation will have to face the errors of prior generations. Consider, if you were forbidden from having any of the waste that you produced leave your property - including waste gasses - how long before you would have to move?

Ask yourself, why, when oil prices have dropped significantly, is the O&G industry fighting so hard to find and exploit every drop of oil and natural gas quickly when the smarter business sense would be to slow drilling until crude prices increase?

Draw your own, but my opinion is that they know their industry has a time limit..

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)