Who is to blame?

[TUMe]

Apparently there is a problem. There has been a pause in Global Warming. This amazing paragraph comes from a CBS News story on the subject:

Scientists have blamed the oceans for the global warming pause before, but they pointed their fingers at the Pacific, not the Atlantic. However, in seeking to test this idea with temperature data, oceanographer Xianyao Chen, of the Ocean University of China in Qingdao, and Tung, an atmospheric scientist, said they couldn't find the missing heat in Pacific Ocean temperature measurements.

BLAMED? I thought we wanted to stop "global warming." I guess, since this is a sports based site, I'll assume this is like rooting for your team to lose so you will get a new coach.
This post was edited on 8/22 12:45 PM by TUMe

CBS News

 

[lawpoke87]

Look.....it's pretty obvious at this point that the "experts" don't understand what's going on, why it's going on, and are unable to predict even the short term climate changes. They were caught offguard when the warming stopped (they predicted the opposite) and have thrown out various theories to explain why they were wrong which have turned out to be....you got it...wrong.

There are more indepth articles out there about the new "Atlantic" theory. My layman's understanding is that there's a naturally occurring ocean cycle (about every 30 years) where ocean currents are either bringing cooler water up from the depths (resulting in a global cooling cycle) or where warmer water is at the surface resulting in warmer global temperatures. This cycle continues for 30 or so years and then reverses. We were in a warming pattern from the mid 70s to 1999 when the cycle reversed. Throws a bit of a wrench in the argument that the warming seen from during that period was the result of carbon emissions as a portion of it is now thought to have been naturally occurring. I assume they will argue about the exact amount to fit the desires of those writing the checks. The undeniable fact is that they simple don't know.

Here's the problem in a nutshell. You have all these scientist receiving tons of federal and worldwide funding to come up a specific consensus on global warming....it's all caused by CO2 emissions and the warming is accelerating and directly aligned with the amount of CO2 we're putting in the atomsphere. So....there's no reason to look for other causes. There's no reason to question whether such warming might pause or even stop due to global events other than CO2. If you question us you're an idiot because we're backed by science. Fine....then act like scientist and explore all possible cause and effects. Stop throwing out theories and predictions as if they are facts. You're losing creditabilty here...fast.

Personally...I believe we are in a warming cycle. I also believe that it is likely that man's activities related to CO2 are contributing to said warming. I also believe the dire predictions based on longterm models have been reckless as even the shorterm models have failed to account for other factors related to our climate. It's time to step back and reconsider our climate models based on factors other than simply CO2 emission numbers. Their obviously isn't a direct linear coorelation between emissions and warming. I've been saying this for the past several years. Stop acting like sheep (both sides) and start asking legitimate questions and admitting that there are many things climate related which we don't understand.

 

[rabidTU]

So they have to have a new theory to explain the problems with the old theory? I seeeeeeeeee!

So if the old theory is incorrect, doesn't that mean some of the Nobel awards should be returned? Just a thought.

 

[TUMe]

Lawpoke, you make a lot of interesting points.

In my opinion, the real problem is trying to predict a very complex system using only one factor. CO2 is a factor. But what about a Krakatoa like volcano event? I'm not talking about Tomorrow. I mean in the rest of this century. They called it the year without Summer. Yes, it was a long time ago. What about cycles in the Sun. If we fully understand them then we don't need anymore Solar research? Can we say we completely understand ocean cycles when we didn't even know about tectonics until about 60 years ago. No one knew about ocean ridges before submarine warfare in WWII. Suddenly, they decided to map the ocean floor.

They got caught with their swimsuits down by the ocean.

 

[BanditBacker]

Back in the Old Days, it was so warm, they had cold-blooded Dinosaurs living as far north as the Canadian Shield. Of course with the ultra large emission spewing vehicles required to haul those behemoths around, it was CO2 City.

 

[lawpoke87]

It's almost like they were given an event (climate has significantly warmed since the early 70s) and given a reason (manmade CO2 emissions) and given $$$$ and told to write scientific papers to show a direct coorelation between the two and then produce a linear graph showing future temperature rise based on a direct coorelation between CO2 emission increases from 1970 to 1999 and temperature increases without looking at any other possible contributing factors. Basically...it's been raining more since I started driving a Ford so if my wife starts driving a Ford then the increase in rain will double. The group think here boggles one's mind.

Unfortunately, instead of realizing that they missed other variables when their models proved wrong they start throwing out more theories as facts to explain their prior wrong conclusions. Global warming may very well be a significant problem going forward but the politicians and their scientist have certainly hurt the cause going forward far more than the so-called "deniers" ever could.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by lawpoke87:

It's almost like they were given an event (climate has significantly warmed since the early 70s) and given a reason (manmade CO2 emissions) and given $$$$ and told to write scientific papers to show a direct coorelation between the two and then produce a linear graph showing future temperature rise based on a direct coorelation between CO2 emission increases from 1970 to 1999 and temperature increases without looking at any other possible contributing factors. Basically...it's been raining more since I started driving a Ford so if my wife starts driving a Ford then the increase in rain will double. The group think here boggles one's mind.

Unfortunately, instead of realizing that they missed other variables when their models proved wrong they start throwing out more theories as facts to explain their prior wrong conclusions. Global warming may very well be a significant problem going forward but the politicians and their scientist have certainly hurt the cause going forward far more than the so-called "deniers" ever could.

That last parargraph is exactly correct imo and why Michael Crichton was so worried about mixing politics with science. One influences the other and the outcome of it is usually something other than the truth.

 

[voetvoet]

Oh my.

Let's start with the article. Global warming is often presented in the form of surface air temperatures, but that's just one area where increased heating on the planet can manifest. We know that the heat capacity of water is greater than air or land and so a good portion of that heat is stored within our oceans (that make up 70% of the Earth's surface). There are cyclical effects on the oceans' ability to hold this heat and these effects can accelerate or decelerate the surface air temperatures that we're often focused on (We most often see this topic discussed when El Nino is brought up).This results in the following:

"Such natural cycles make global warming look more like a staircase than a steady rise in temperatures"

In the end, the takeaway from this story should be that less of the heat is being stored in the Pacific than we originally thought and more heat is being stored elsewhere in other bodies of water. But if you think of it in terms of the Law of Conservation of Energy, then that heat has to go somewhere.

As to the experts not knowing what's going on, as Lawpoke says. The only way you can reach that conclusion is by conflating our understanding of the past with forecasts for the future. We have a pretty clear understanding of what's happened in the past. What we can't do nearly as well is predict the future in a very specific sense. But I think it's silly to assume that our inability to accurately predict the future somehow reflects poorly on our ability to explain past events.

And finally, we somehow transitioned into the funding fallacy. My first response to that argument will always be that private corporations have billions of dollars to spend and a vested interest in squashing Global Warming. But it also involves a fundamental misunderstanding of how research funding operates and how little influence government funding agencies have on the research once the money has been granted. At the end of the day, a researcher who disproved global warming would stand to gain significantly more than his colleagues who are fighting for the scraps of government funding that remain for global warming research. And it's not just money, that same researcher would instantly become the most famous name in his or her field. Believing that all of this research and all of these scientists spread across the globe are all driven to fabricate results simply to support a cause involves an elaborate conspiracy theory that's a bridge way too far for me. Sometimes the simplest answer is also the right answer.

 

[lawpoke87]

I would argue the failure to take into account the role of natural reoccurring ocean cycles in the evaluation of global warming and not including the same in forecast models demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of the dynamics responsible for climate change. The latest estimate per this report is that the Atlantic Ocean cycle is responsible for up to half of the temperature increase from the 1970s to 1999 when the cycle reversed. Prior to this theory the group think was that all of the increase in temperatures during this time frame was attributed directly to man made CO2 emissions. How does this new explanation indicate that we had an understanding of this issue? Our models are wrong because they didn't account for naturally occurring events such as ocean cycles. I have a hard time arguing we understand an issue when we fail to consider events which play a major role in climate change.

Question: If this new theory is correct it appears warming is much less effected by CO2 levels than previously believed and models need to be adjusted to take into account other factors which effects global temperature. Isn't this good news? Why aren't we hearing from those whose models appear to be grossly overstated?

 

[TUMe]

The problem is that there is a lack of interest in good news. Someone or something is to blame for good news. We have been told that dire events are going to happen if we don't change. [8-10 years ago we were told we would pass a point of no return in 5 years. Predictions have been made for the future.] Good new would mean that someone was wrong. Good news doesn't sell newspapers or increase TV news ratings. It doesn't call for bigger government or more research spending. It doesn't motivate people to vote for change. Neither the liberal nor conservative press is pushing any good news. They work harder on blaming the other side for one group of problems or another. Good news is boring. Some people honestly worry about zombie attack. Mostly young kids but some adults seem to pretend....

There was a lot of talk in the 1970's that we were running out of oil, now the talk 40 plus years later is that we are using too much. Here is an interesting fact. In the 1970's there were actually articles that we were in danger of running out of asbestos. You don't hear much talk these days about a critical shortage of asbestos. It's tough to predict the future. They also predicted that we would be so automated that only the privileged few would be allowed to work.

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by voetvoet:

But if you think of it in terms of the Law of Conservation of Energy, then that heat has to go somewhere.




I understand what you are saying but the statement is not technically correct. Heat is one form of energy, various forms of energy can and often are converted into other forms. We know heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation and a few other ways. Then entire principle of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is that it stops some of the heat loss by radiation which actually means that energy from heat has to go somewhere in the Universe not just somewhere on Earth and not just into heat. Energy in form of radiation comes into the Earth and some goes out as radiation. Some of the energy is stored chemically in plants and animals. Man can mess that up by cutting forests or by burning stored energy. Incoming radiation can be held by greenhouse gases, reflected by clouds or particulates in the atmosphere. [We also know that is incoming Solar energy is effect by cycles in the Sun.]

Heat is one form of energy: Molecular kinetic energy. That doesn't have to and does not remain constant. When early man discovered how to apply enough kinetic energy to meet the energy of activation of wood we began effecting our climate. But climate had varied for billions of years before man was here. Any changes that man has made were imposed on top of or against the current background trend at the time.

 

[aTUfan]

It's. George Bush's fault.

Just ask bho.

 

[BanditBacker]

Could any of you Smart People explain to me why it would be a bad idea to have less CO2? Whether it is causing Global Warming or not?

 

[aTUfan]

Dont plants covert CO2 into Oxygen?


according to a report on the Weather Channel, we are in the middle of a polar inversion which weakens the Earth's magnetic sfield thus allowing more Solar energy to penetrate our atmosphere causing our "global warming".

They mentioned nothing about CO2.

 

[noble cane]

Originally posted by BanditBacker:

Could any of you Smart People explain to me why it would be a bad idea to have less CO2? Whether it is causing Global Warming or not?

I'm all about less CO2.... I'm working on a PSA that will encourage all Blue Stater's to stop breathing....

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by BanditBacker:

Could any of you Smart People explain to me why it would be a bad idea to have less CO2? Whether it is causing Global Warming or not?

Of course, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have less CO2. Plants love it. It's not nearly high enough in our atmosphere to bother animals. It can contribute to global temperature increase. The question is whether temperature increase is the disaster that some say. Is it bad enough to greatly curtail the use of coal, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, ethanol, wood for heat in primitive locations and many other of people's activities? Are there enough other energy sources and ability to get them to the final user to do away with the main source of power on the planet.
This post was edited on 8/27 10:26 PM by TUMe

 

[WATU2]

Thanks for posting. I envy your patience.