Jump to content


The Global Warming Pause


Recommended Posts

The discussion continues - this on the global warming 'pause' . I don't think I've seen a discussion on 'the pause' so thought I'd start one. Feel free to add to these articles with your comments, rebuttals one way or another and scientific factoids .

This debate will continue until we are covered up wt ocean water in the Mid West or until we are covered again by glacier activity creeping down from S. Dak. :ahhhhhhhh

 

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/nasa-climate-scientist-explains-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/

 

 

 

 

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

Link to comment

There's no debate on this, at least from the scientific community. There is no pause.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/16/global_warming_new_study_shows_pause_doesn_t_exist.html

 

 

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the ongoing noise about global warming, then you’ve heard of the so-called pause. This is the idea that the planet hasn’t actually been warming for the past 15 years or so.

 

However, this is baloney. First off, the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, most of that heat is going into deep ocean waters.

 

Second, if you look at temperatures historically, we see ups and down like this every few decades; you have to look at the overall multidecade trend and not focus on some short (and cherry-picked) time frame.

 

And now we have something else to add to that list: The “pause” may not exist at all.

 

A new study shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. The problem, say the authors, is that the global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

People fight the global warming issue on the wrong battlefield, the science part is just the beginning. The progression of debate should be:

 

1. Is global warming happening?

2. Are humans a significant factor?

3. Are there steps we can take to effectively curb/reverse warming?

4. Is this warming resulting in enough harm to be worth combating?

5. Are proposed fixes feasible?

 

My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, no, and LOL.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

People fight the global warming issue on the wrong battlefield, the science part is just the beginning. The progression of debate should be:

 

1. Is global warming happening?

2. Are humans a significant factor?

3. Are there steps we can take to effectively curb/reverse warming?

4. Is this warming resulting in enough harm to be worth combating?

5. Are proposed fixes feasible?

 

My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, no, and LOL.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to include potential future results in #4?

 

I don't think that too many people are worried about the existing harm.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be more accurate to include potential future results in #4?

 

I don't think that too many people are worried about the existing harm.

 

 

Climate alarmists certainly are whenever a tornado wrecks a town somewhere. But sure, you can include future impacts, though that's highly speculative and wouldn't change my answer.

Link to comment

Climate alarmists certainly are whenever a tornado wrecks a town somewhere. But sure, you can include future impacts, though that's highly speculative and wouldn't change my answer.

Meh. The climate alarmists are almost certainly misattributing the causes but at least they accept scientific consensus.

 

Your truism about future predictions being speculative is true.

Link to comment

People fight the global warming issue on the wrong battlefield, the science part is just the beginning. The progression of debate should be:

 

1. Is global warming happening?

2. Are humans a significant factor?

3. Are there steps we can take to effectively curb/reverse warming?

4. Is this warming resulting in enough harm to be worth combating?

5. Are proposed fixes feasible?

 

My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, no, and LOL.

The correct answer to all 5 questions is "Yes" Simply because you don't understand does not mean it should be ignored.

  • Fire 7
Link to comment

 

People fight the global warming issue on the wrong battlefield, the science part is just the beginning. The progression of debate should be:

 

1. Is global warming happening?

2. Are humans a significant factor?

3. Are there steps we can take to effectively curb/reverse warming?

4. Is this warming resulting in enough harm to be worth combating?

5. Are proposed fixes feasible?

 

My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, no, and LOL.

The correct answer to all 5 questions is "Yes" Simply because you don't understand does not mean it should be ignored.

 

 

Putting all our other disagreements aside, if you think the answer to #5 is 'yes,' you're in a deep, deep state of denial. There is zero political will in the United States, next to none in the rest of the western world, and less than zero in the developing world for the types of proposals put forward. Feasibility in this case contains two elements: one, could we do things to reverse global warming? Sure, there are plenty of ideas out there. Two, do any of these things have the slightest chance of being implemented? Not a snowball's chance in hell Copenhagen.

 

There is no way you're ever going to convince people to give up their cars, A/C, computers, and pay more for literally everything, just to ward off some unspecified future threat after 50 years of false alarms from eco-radicals.

 

 

 

Meh. The climate alarmists are almost certainly misattributing the causes but at least they accept scientific consensus.

 

Perhaps they should stick with the science instead of spewing easily falsifiable nonsense in science's name, then.

Link to comment

 

 

People fight the global warming issue on the wrong battlefield, the science part is just the beginning. The progression of debate should be:

 

1. Is global warming happening?

2. Are humans a significant factor?

3. Are there steps we can take to effectively curb/reverse warming?

4. Is this warming resulting in enough harm to be worth combating?

5. Are proposed fixes feasible?

 

My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, no, and LOL.

The correct answer to all 5 questions is "Yes" Simply because you don't understand does not mean it should be ignored.

 

 

Putting all our other disagreements aside, if you think the answer to #5 is 'yes,' you're in a deep, deep state of denial. There is zero political will in the United States, next to none in the rest of the western world, and less than zero in the developing world for the types of proposals put forward. Feasibility in this case contains two elements: one, could we do things to reverse global warming? Sure, there are plenty of ideas out there. Two, do any of these things have the slightest chance of being implemented? Not a snowball's chance in hell Copenhagen.

 

There is no way you're ever going to convince people to give up their cars, A/C, computers, and pay more for literally everything, just to ward off some unspecified future threat after 50 years of false alarms from eco-radicals.

 

 

 

Meh. The climate alarmists are almost certainly misattributing the causes but at least they accept scientific consensus.

 

Perhaps they should stick with the science instead of spewing easily falsifiable nonsense in science's name, then.

 

Where the hell are you getting this BS from? Some Koch brothers indoctrination probably. There is no call to go back to the stone age, or giving up anything really. Moving away from coal power plants to making solar and wind more prevalent.

 

What's going to be cheaper in the long term. Overhauling the energy grid and replacing old cars with hybrids and electrics, or an increasing number of disaster clean ups? Even many big businesses are coming around that climate change is going to dramatically impact their bottom line, and are becoming more supportive of 'green' initiatives. Try to educate yourself on what is really going on before going hook-line--sinker into what some old money operations want you to think so they can protect their short term bottom lines.

 

Oh, its 50 years away, so lets not worry about it because you and your like minded brethren expect to be dead. That is colossally short sighted.

 

The political will comes as the electorate demands. It is as simple as that. Defeat the coal backed candidates and things change in a hurry.

 

And Europe is already making moves in the 'green' direction.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

Where the hell are you getting this BS from? Some Koch brothers indoctrination probably. There is no call to go back to the stone age, or giving up anything really. Moving away from coal power plants to making solar and wind more prevalent.

 

 

 

KOCH BROTHERS (!!!) The only people who know or care who they are are Democratic hacks parroting Harry Reid. Newsflash: there are mega donors on both sides.

 

Wind power is an impractical money hole and solar is incapable of delivering the volume we need. If you want to draw down on dirty sources of energy, then help crush the econuts blocking natural gas and nuclear power. The environmental movement has an enormous problem with reality. The goal should be the cleanest energy source that's feasible. When the only two options you put forward are simultaneously the most heavily subsidized energy sources in the country and responsible for about 3.5% of annual electric production, I have to assume you're either not in touch with reality, or intend to destroy life as we know it, because electric + solar is not and cannot deliver the quantities of energy that we need.

 

Overhauling the energy grid and replacing old cars with hybrids and electrics, or an increasing number of disaster clean ups? Even many big businesses are coming around that climate change is going to dramatically impact their bottom line, and are becoming more supportive of 'green' initiatives. Try to educate yourself on what is really going on before going hook-line--sinker into what some old money operations want you to think so they can protect their short term bottom lines.

 

 

If the alarmists are right (they aren't), none of this will matter. China and India's CO2 output increases are going to crush whatever reductions Europe and the US come up with. But sure, voluntary conservation is good, conservative even. I keep my house at 78 in the summer, recycle, and drive a Toyota Camry. I have no problem with steps to reduce energy use and cleaning up how we produce it. I do have a problem with wasting tax money on "green" measures that are completely impractical.

 

Oh, its 50 years away, so lets not worry about it because you and your like minded brethren expect to be dead. That is colossally short sighted.

I never said anything resembling that. I did say that environmental alarmists have been screeching about the leafy issue de jour and have a very bad track record with their predictions.

 

The political will comes as the electorate demands. It is as simple as that. Defeat the coal backed candidates and things change in a hurry. And Europe is already making moves in the 'green' direction.

 

You're asking people to inflict financial pain on themselves. The political will for THAT will only come if the alarmists' predictions come true (they won't), and would be too late in any case.

 

Canada, Australia and Japan aren't in the EU, but are major economies, and are increasingly deciding that carbon taxes and the like aren't exactly economic boons. And again, none of this matters relative to China, India and the other developing economies.

 

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

Meh. The climate alarmists are almost certainly misattributing the causes but at least they accept scientific consensus.

Perhaps they should stick with the science instead of spewing easily falsifiable nonsense in science's name, then.

 

Sure! Do you think that there are more of those people than the 77% of Republicans who don't believe that human activity is causing global warming? Or more of them than GOP leaders and elected officials who play to the rubes with "I'm not a scientist" and/or "the science isn't settled"?

 

Which do you think is more concerning?

Link to comment

But you guys, there was a poorly-supported hypothesis of global cooling in the 70s that a few publications ran with. So, that means . . . something, right?

Remember when the big scare tactic was the alleged hole in the ozone layer?! Now they're trying to scare us with this, huh?!
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...