Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled...

Posted 7 years ago on March 30, 2013, 3:26 a.m. EST by sylquester (-41)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalysed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.


Apparently the debate is not over.



Read the Rules


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The rate of Arctic ice melt is exceeding all the estimates and that probably has a more direct affect on weather in the short range.

Oh this just in, this post has already been debunked,


[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

I disagree. The profit motive clearly belongs to Algore and Hansen and all the people/entities that stand to clean up financially from carbon credits,regulation,marketing and selling the hysteria that has become the hoax of climate change.

As anybody knows what a wealthy man Algore has become from the selling of this fantasy.


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Global warming has been occurring for the last 20,000 years. Care to dispute this fact?


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

A simple question. What caused the last ice age?


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Ice ages and warm ages are the result of natural causes, not man. People like the Carteret Islanders who chose to gamble on the edge of habitability have lost.


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Ad hominem is the last defense for those whose arguments no longer have any facts to stand on.


[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

I'm thinking you need to go cold turkey on the hallucinogens and turn off MSLSD it's rotting your brain.

[-] 2 points by Ananda (29) from Boston, MA 7 years ago

The missing 'warming' has been found in the Oceans, below 700 meters depth. Climate predictions are extremely complex and difficult to get exact, time and degrees will not be perfect, that's why there's a large window. Many climate scientists fear that IPCC has been far too conservative. Scientists who observe the arctic sheet are very, very worried with some expecting there to be NO summer ice by 2015-16. These scientists are also now observing defrosted methane bubbling to the ocean surface, a sign many have said indicates we are past the tipping point for runaway warming and that it may even be here now.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Provide a link to your source.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

You are incorrect. The debate is over. Pollution is bad. From acid rain to heavy metals the effects are wide ranging and drastic. Climate change is part of the problems but even with out climate change we have a huge pollution problem. The ocean and lakes are dying and so are people.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Plastic pollution is now part of the food chain.

The Pacific Waste Dump is eleven metres (36 feet) deep, and larger than Texas. Trans-Pacific flights are directed around it, so people don't see it floating out there in our Pacific ocean.


[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

yeah i have watched a doc on it in the past.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

It's breaking down, and moving into the food chain. Not sure what will happen there. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the mess, but if we continue on our present polluting path, the oceans will be destroyed, and so will our food supply.

Perhaps monsatan sees this as a positive for their marketing team.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

On the off chance you want the actual science behind this here is the NOVA site that explains it, BTW it's from 2006, this is not new nor unexplained:


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled...

As long as they continue to receive their fossil fuel stipends/donations/funding - Hey?

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

(NaturalNews) For over 20 years, the dogma of man-made global warming has been trumping sound science and even basic logic. The result has been a global movement of pseudo-scientific alarmism about climate change that seeks to solve it with scams like global carbon taxes.

But a simple visual chart put together by Jo Nova shows how governments, industry, and Wall Street have been behind the global warming scam all along, and how they continue to use taxpayer dollars to fund it.

Nova calls it "The Climate Change Scare Machine," a continuous cycle that bilks taxpayers out of their money in order to fund the man-made global warming agenda. Behind this agenda are Wall Street financial firms, "green" foundations, and even organizations created specifically to smear those that speak out against global warming. And after receiving "rubber stamp" approval from the mainstream media, the misinformation created by these groups is peddled to the masses as scientific truth, even though little-to-none of it is actually based in sound science.

Global warming scam perpetuated by government, industry, and Wall Street - and taxpayers have been footing the bill!

Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Climate change apologists have a monopoly on science Many of the formulas, calculations, studies, and other data cited as evidence of man-made climate change have been exposed as seriously flawed over the past several years. But because the problem is "systemic" rather than "conspiratorial," according to Nova, this monopoly on science and scientific thought is strangling any real progress towards discovering the real truth about climate change. As a result, the man-made global warming theory is still considered to be truth, despite a lack of credible evidence.

To make matters worse, the few scientists and climate experts that are brave enough to speak out against global warming, using real science to back up their claims, continue to be ignored or ridiculed by the establishment. There simply is no room for alternate theories, or any type of evidence that contradicts the official story, after all.

As a result, many others in the scientific industry who feel the same way are intimidated from speaking out themselves, for fear that they will lose funding or even their careers. Many of the major scientific groups that study climate science are funded by the same interests pushing the man-made climate change theory, after all.

So unless the system undergoes a massive overhaul, those that have much to gain from pushing the man-made climate change theory will continue to push their agenda, and corner the market on climate science. And with a virtually unlimited supply of taxpayer dollars to maintain this monopoly, any legitimate, independent scientific inquiry into climate change will remain in the shadows.

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

Warmest Temperatures In 4,000 Years? Not So Fast, Global Warming Alarmists

James Taylor, Contributor

The mainstream media are reporting in breathless fashion about a new paper claiming current temperatures are their warmest in 4,000 years. Already, however, objective scientists are reporting serious flaws in the paper. The media may wish to paint a picture of runaway global warming, but the science tells a completely different story.

Recently graduated Ph.D. student Shaun Marcott has published a paper claiming he compiled a proxy temperature reconstruction indicating current temperatures are their warmest in at least 4,000 years. Proxy temperature reconstructions require careful scrutiny because the proxies are not direct temperature measurements, but represent other data and factors that may or may not have a close correlation with past temperatures. Some proxies are better than others. Also, an agenda-driven researcher can easily cherry-pick certain anomalous proxies that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring a much larger set of proxies that tell a different story.

Perhaps the most notorious of agenda-driven proxy reconstructions was published by global warming alarmist Michael Mann. As a young, relatively unknown recent Ph.D. graduate, Mann attained wealth, fame and adulation among global warming alarmists after assembling a proxy temperature reconstruction that he claimed showed global temperatures underwent a steady, roughly 1,000-year decline followed by a sharp rise during the 20th century. The media reported on the Mann hockey stick reconstruction as if it settled the global warming debate, but objective scientists pointed out several crucial flaws that invalidated Mann’s claims. Eventually, Congress commissioned distinguished statistician Edward Wegman to review and report on Mann’s methods and conclusions. After assembling a blue ribbon panel of experts to study Mann’s temperature reconstruction, Wegman reported the criticisms of Mann’s reconstruction were “valid and compelling.”

The Marcott proxy reconstruction shares much in common with the Mann hockey stick. Marcott is a young, recently graduated Ph.D. student whose asserted temperature reconstruction has launched him out of obscurity into media fame. As was the case with Mann’s hockey stick, objective scientists quickly pointed out serious flaws in the Marcott reconstruction. Also similar to the Mann hockey stick, the media is ignoring the devastating critiques of the Marcott reconstruction and misleading the public into believing that we finally have a study showing essentially the same thing that Mann claimed before his hockey stick was discredited.

Although objective scientists have had little time so far to dig into the meat of Marcott’s data, methods and conclusions, their initial observations are devastating. Don Easterbrook, geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has published two papers available here and here summarizing and documenting many of the already discovered flaws in Marcott’s reconstruction. Easterbrook reports that at least one more such paper is on the way, as he and other objective scientists find more and more flaws and areas of concern in Marcott’s reconstruction as they continue to analyze it.

Easterbrook points out that 80 percent of the data used by Marcott reflect oceanic data, not atmospheric temperatures. “Thus, they may reflect temperature changes from ocean upwelling, changes in ocean currents, or any one of a number of ocean variations not related to atmospheric climates,” Easterbrook writes. Given the opportunities for cherry-picking anomalous data to support a predetermined conclusion (such as objective scientists found regarding the Mann hockey stick), Marcott’s heavy dependence on oceanic rather than atmospheric proxies “in itself means that the Marcott et al. temperatures are not a reliable measure of changing atmospheric climate,” Easterbrook reports.

Easterbrook also notes that Marcott recycled Mann’s proxies to help compile the small portion of Marcott’s land-based proxies. Discredited proxies by any other name are still discredited proxies. Perhaps most damaging, Easterbrook observes that many other published studies and data, including analysis of extremely reliable Greenland ice core data, completely contradict Marcott’s asserted proxy data.

When many temperature studies, including studies presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, indicate current global temperatures are cooler than the vast majority of the past 4,000 years, and then an outlier study with quickly identified serious flaws claims exactly the opposite, one would think the media would make note of the discrepancies. Unfortunately, the media has demonstrated little interest in doing so. There are several reasons for this.

First, the news media is prone to overhype the news events of the day. Hype sells newspapers and attracts viewers. This is the case for all news topics and certainly applies to global warming.

Second, fear captivates people. This is one of the reasons why television and print news contains so much bad news and so little good news. A single breathless report of impending global warming doom is going to rope in more viewers and readers than a whole collection of reports explaining that current temperatures are actually quite cool in historical perspective.

Third, it is no secret that the media drifts left on many issues, and drifts left on environmental issues in particular.

Combine these three factors and you have a textbook recipe for yellow journalism; a perfect storm representing all the reasons why people no longer trust the mainsteam media to be fair, balanced and accurate.

The scientific record shows quite clearly that current temperatures are significantly cooler than the 4,000-year average, yet the media uses a seriously flawed study to claim the opposite. Global warming alarmists put their trust in the media, while global warming realists put their trust in the science.

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

The Obama Administration, early in its first term, bet $1 billion in loans to two electric car companies, Fisker and Tesla. Fisker is backed by a venture capital fund, where Al Gore is a partner. Fisker purchased a shuttered GM plant in Delaware, where it said it would build the cars. Vice President Joe Biden attended a press conference announcing the awarding of the loan.

At the time of the loan announcement, Al Gore predicted that tens of thousands of electric vehicles would someday be rolling off the assembly line at the Delaware plant.

More than two years after the awarding of the loan, however, it was revealed that Fisker had shifted its production to Finland, hiring 500 workers there. It was also revealed that only 40 electric cars had been built, of which only 2 had been delivered to customers. One of these lucky recipients was Leonardo di Caprio.

Later this month, the company is scheduled to make a loan repayment to the Department of Energy. The preparations for bankruptcy are in indication that the company will be unable to meet this payment.

The fate of the company should provide another cautionary tale about the government's inability to pick winners in the marketplace. The capital markets are swimming in liquidity, chasing anything that would provide any kind of investment return. That private money is pouring into "green energy" companies is simply a reflection of the fact that, at least in the near-term, their business models don't work.

All the federal loans in the world can't change that.

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

These loons really need to stop… Junk scientists now claim global warming is causing thicker ice in Antarctica. The BBC reported:

Climate change is expanding Antarctica’s sea ice, according to a scientific study in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The paradoxical phenomenon is thought to be caused by relatively cold plumes of fresh water derived from melting beneath the Antarctic ice shelves.

This melt water has a relatively low density, so it accumulates in the top layer of the ocean.

The cool surface waters then re-freeze more easily during Autumn and Winter.

This explains the observed peak in sea ice during these seasons, a team from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in De Bilt says in its peer-reviewed paper.

Climate scientists have been intrigued by observations that Antarctic sea ice shows a small but statistically significant expansion of about 1.9% per decade since 1985, while sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking over past decades.

Last year the junk scientists tried to convince us that global warming means more ice. Then they tried to convince us that global warming will cause less snow but more blizzards. Now they want us to believe global warming causes thicker ice. What lunacy.

[-] -1 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.

By: Bjorn Lomborg

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of “zero emissions,” and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars’ limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it’s truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it’s a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio’s ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don’t contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don’t emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

That is why clean tech power plants ( power sources ) need to be implemented.


Supercharger | Tesla Motors www.teslamotors.com/supercharger Charge in minutes, not hours. And it's free. Tesla Superchargers are placed along well-traveled routes in North America. Nine stations are currently active, ...

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago


[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

No responses to these challenges, guess they know they're wrong.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

More likely the attackers of green tech are trying to come-up with some sort of BS attack.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I am not afraid.

[-] -3 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

Yeah Tesla motors,LOL. Will you be putting one on your Leaf? Unless you're rich your comment is meaningless. Even the GodFather of the electric car Mr. Prius says:

Hybrid car pioneer and “father of the Prius” Takeshi Uchiyamada says the billions poured into developing battery electric vehicles have ultimately been in vain. ”Because of its shortcomings–driving range, cost and recharging time–the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars,” said Uchiyamada. “We need something entirely new.”

You're beating a dead horse.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Costs come down as production increases. Provide a link to the GodFather. What else was said? Perhaps the need to support these technologies with other implementations of infrastructure to support the transition to clean energy? Hhmmmm???

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Well, if you insist...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

U silly U {:-])

[-] -3 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

If you're not too afraid to venture outside of your OWS comfort zone you could find out a wealth of information that is in stark contrast to your Leftist propaganda diet. It's a big world out there, where everybody doesn't kiss your ass and agree with everything you think or say. Try it sometime. I'm guessing you'd rather stay here and commiserate with your non-threatning, like minded chums and continue to beat that dead horse.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

yeah a big world of idiots, morons, incompetents, buffoons, religotards, bigots, ignorant fools. it is especially prevalent in the uneducated, the poor, and rural individuals.


[-] -3 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

More intolerance from the Left.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

i never said i tolerated the dumb. as a matter of fact i don't tolerate them or humor them. i don't need to hear their point of view or see things their way. go read drudge, watch o'reilly, or listen to rush or whatever it is you do to keep yourself happy.

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

The irony of ignorance and arrogance. You're right,you don't need to hear anything but your own point of view. You're most illustrative of the old saying; "ignorance is bliss". A mind like a steel trap,you're a fucking genius, I get it.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

i hear plenty beyond my own point of view i just don't listen to idiots.

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

You are an "IDIOT"!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Talking to the mirror and letting your fingers do the walking? again?

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

Trolling again??

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Yes - that is what we all figured you were up to.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

U R molting? Will you see more clearly after?

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

U R incoherent.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

U wish. I think it likely that U understand me just fine.

U R 2molt - right?

[-] -1 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

Reading comprehension not your forte I take it. So do you have anything of substance to post or are you just trolling?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

So do you have anything of substance to post or are you just trolling?

Funny question. I think most would relate it to you - mult.

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

Thinking seems not to be your forte either. What are you good at,... trolling?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Thinking seems not to be your forte either. What are you good at,... trolling?

Posing questions 2 your self. GOOD. Now - seek professional help to resolve your issues.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Hey dumb fuck, not everything is a left vs right arguement. Theres about half the population that doesnt want your pre designed nonsense.

If you know its a big world then you should know to watch your fuckin mouth because someone may put their fist in it. But this is just the internet, so ramble on like a warrior there pal.

[-] -1 points by sylquester (-41) 7 years ago

Running out of intellectual steam I see.

What's next?? "Yo, Adrian! It's me, Rocky."

"You gotta be a moron... you gotta be a moron to wanna be a fighter."

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Are you the horse?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Oh go beat "your" meat somewhere else like the good little useless idiot shill that you are. Go and immerse your self in the fossil fuel propaganda/lies.

[-] -1 points by greysone (-264) 7 years ago

and obama does it so well.

[-] 3 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

why do you people insist on bringing up obama like ows supports obama? it is fucking insulting to ows and everything it stands for. maybe that is why you do it.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

I agree, QM.

There is no love for the prez in this org.

If hypocrisy had a middle name, it would be hussein.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

its retarded. yeah, the anarchists, marxists, social democrats, and libertarians like obama... lol what a fucking joke.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

This points to the weakness in their position.

They simply don't have one, so they resort to fabrication and obfuscation.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

gotta love the internet.


[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 7 years ago

You said a mouthful there quanty


[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

"producing" electric cars means carbon dioxide emissions?

This is a secret? producing any vehicle (even internal combustion cars) creates emissions.

Whats the point?

Perhaps we must insist that car manufacturing must be powered by solar/wind/geothermal electricity.

That will resolve your concern right?

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

There's a new consensus forming that the worst forecasts for global climate change may need to be reconsidered. The clearest sign of this is a piece that appeared in the Economist March 30th titled "A Sensitive Matter."

The title of the piece has a double meaning. It's a reference to climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide but also to the political climate which, in the last five years, has taken to calling anyone who dares to disagree with climate predictions "deniers."

But the Economist, which has a history of pushing dire predictions about climate change, has decided to broach the sensitive topic and point out actual surface temperatures have already exited the 75 percent confidence interval predicted by climate models and now seems on course to exit the 95 percent interval in just a couple more years.

That could still change of course, but for the moment it looks like the models have predicted more warming than is actually taking place. There are of course different possible explanations for this. It's possible that aerosols are more reflective than previously thought, meaning more of the sun's energy is being reflected rather than absorbed. At the same time, it's possible that the warming effect of one aerosol, soot, has been underestimated by climate models.

The Economist points out that there are new papers being published using alternative models which predict a significantly lower temperature increase. The article highlights several of these including the work of Nic Lewis who "reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data." Lewis concluded the actual temperature increase would more likely be around 1.6 degrees Celsius. That's half the increase predicted by the IPCC.

The policy impact comes not at the end of the piece but in the middle. It's the kind of common sense that should appeal to conservatives turned off by climate change fear-mongering:

If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it. This is called “mitigation”, in the jargon. Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it. Many economists, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, have made this case.

If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin.

The important point is that we just don't know enough at this moment to say which response--mitigation, drastic intervention or adaptation, is appropriate. The growing divergence between models and reality means the consensus--like the models--may need some adjustment.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

I really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. 2012 was among the top ten warmest years on record.

LOL - Fossil fuel shills have nothing - that is why they post all of this kind of crap.

[-] -2 points by 2mult (-42) 7 years ago

You keep your head in the sand. It obviously isn't doing you any good above ground.


[-] -2 points by mandy9 (-5) 7 years ago

Scientists puzzled? Wait. I thought Al Gore said it was "settled" He KNOWS the Earth s getting hotter (despite it getting colder) and he knows how to fix it.

Subject settled.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

You little fucking whiny fascist fuck.