What global warming? Staggering study says temperatures rose more BEFORE 1997

fuck off with your right wing science denying memes



Listen to science and quit cherry picking to protect your evil fucking masters money
 
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

"The last notable decadal slowdown during the modern era occurred during the big hiatus. The recent decadal slowdown, on the other hand, is unique in having occurred during a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system. This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG (Green House Gases) forcing than previously thought, or are negative forcings playing a larger role than expected? Or is the recent slowdown a natural decadal modulation of the long-term GMST trend? If the latter is the case, we might expect a ‘surge’ back to the forced trend when internal variability flips phase."
Click to expand...

The question going forward, within the science community (which includes Michael Mann), is still not if humans have contributed to the warming. They still strongly believe that. They are questioning if there is less of an impact than previously thought, but there are no conclusions in this study that would point that this is true. It's something the scientific community will continue to look at. They also clearly state on the first page of the study that this is a 'slowdown' and not a 'stop'.

"This divergence occurs at a time of rapid increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)1. A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop’."
Click to expand...

Remember, we just broke another warming record in 2014, then again in 2015.


Concluding remarks
Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001–2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate. Recent research that has identified and corrected the errors and inhomogeneities in the surface air temperature record is of high scientific value. Investigations have also identified non-climatic artefacts in tropospheric temperatures inferred from radiosondes and satellites, and important errors in ocean heat uptake estimates. Newly identified observational errors do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s–1990s. This reduction arises through the combined effects of internal decadal variability, volcanic and solar activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing. The warming slowdown has motivated substantial research into decadal climate variability and uncertainties in key external forcings. As a result, the scientific community is now better able to explain temperature variations such as those experienced during the early twenty-first century, and perhaps even to make skilful predictions of such fluctuations in the future. For example, climate model predictions initialized with recent observations indicate a transition to a positive phase of the IPO with increased rates of global surface temperature warming (ref. 34, and G.A. Meehl, A. Hu and H.Teng, manuscript in preparation).In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century6, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny. Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades. This slowdown is evident in time series of GMST and in the global mean temperature of the lower troposphere. The magnitude and statistical significance of observed trends (and the magnitude and significance of their differences relative to model expectations) depends on the start and end dates of the intervals considered.Research into the nature and causes of the slowdown has triggered improved understanding of observational biases, radiative forcing and internal variability. This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more — particularly if internal variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions. The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown. This is particularly true in the embryonic field of decadal climate prediction, where the challenge is to simulate how the combined effects of external forcing and internal variability produce the time-evolving regional climate we will experience over the next ten years.
Click to expand...
 
DigitalDave said:
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com



The question going forward, within the science community (which includes Michael Mann), is still not if humans have contributed to the warming. They still strongly believe that. They are questioning if there is less of an impact than previously thought, but there are no conclusions in this study that would point that this is true. It's something the scientific community will continue to look at. They also clearly state on the first page of the study that this is a 'slowdown' and not a 'stop'.



Remember, we just broke another warming record in 2014, then again in 2015.
Click to expand...

Nobody is claiming that there isn't warming and indeed even during the hiatus/pause there was a small amount of warming (possibly), however it's difficult to tell if it is just noise or a genuine trend. What the paper makes abundantly clear though is that none of the climate models predicted the pause and the rate of warming is far less than in the 90s despite CO2 going into the atmosphere without pause. Most sceptics expected some warming to be detected around the time of the El Nino and that is what has been seen. The trend now will be towards flatlining or even some cooling, in the next decade or so.
 
Moonflower said:
Nobody is claiming that there isn't warming and indeed even during the hiatus/pause there was a small amount of warming (possibly), however it's difficult to tell if it is just noise or a genuine trend. What the paper makes abundantly clear though is that none of the climate models predicted the pause and the rate of warming is far less than in the 90s despite CO2 going into the atmosphere without pause. Most sceptics expected some warming to be detected around the time of the El Nino and that is what has been seen. The trend now will be towards flatlining or even some cooling, in the next decade or so.
Click to expand...

I didn't draw that same conclusion from this study. What I seem to gather from it, is that what caused this slowdown is still being researched but they have to deal with forcings that were imposed, like recovery from volcanic eruption and solar irradiance changes. I don't think we will see a flatline or cooling, and this study doesn't support that thought. Is this something you interpreted from this study or a separate study, or is it a guess?

Mostly, what I got out of this study, is that our scientific community, who I admit understands this much better than I, feels more certain that they can understand temperature variations, and make better predictions.
 
DigitalDave said:
I didn't draw that same conclusion from this study. What I seem to gather from it, is that what caused this slowdown is still being researched but they have to deal with forcings that were imposed, like recovery from volcanic eruption and solar irradiance changes. I don't think we will see a flatline or cooling, and this study doesn't support that thought. Is this something you interpreted from this study or a separate study, or is it a guess?

Mostly, what I got out of this study, is that our scientific community, who I admit understands this much better than I, feels more certain that they can understand temperature variations, and make better predictions.
Click to expand...

What this study has shown is that despite the best attempts of organisations like NOAA to make the pause/hiatus/slowdown go away, it is resolutely fact and confirmed by Michael Mann himself. Possible future cooling has been indicated by several other studies as well, now that may not be the case but the whole point is no one really knows. So when someone starts banging on about a consensus I know that they are disseminating at best and being downright mendacious at worst.
 
Moonflower said:
What this study has shown is that despite the best attempts of organisations like NOAA to make the pause/hiatus/slowdown go away, it is resolutely fact and confirmed by Michael Mann himself. Possible future cooling has been indicated by several other studies as well, now that may not be the case but the whole point is no one really knows. So when someone starts banging on about a consensus I know that they are disseminating at best and being downright mendacious at worst.
Click to expand...

The 97% consensus they talk about is not necessarily accurate, as that number simply comes from the percentage of scientific articles that have been written Pro or Con. It's somewhat deceiving I believe. Although, even if it were true, I would appreciate that 3%, as they would help keep the scientific community honest, and studies like the one here wouldn't be overlooked. I'm more interested in the truth, and I do fall on the side of believing that we are impacting the warming process, but would be elated if I was wrong. Let me know what studies you've found indicating a cooling, wouldn't mind reading something to challenge my thinking!
 
Wattsupwiththat.com is a compendium of info on the subject. Be sure to check out CERNs research on solar emissions that actually correlate with temp changing.
 
Celticguy said:
Wattsupwiththat.com is a compendium of info on the subject. Be sure to check out CERNs research on solar emissions that actually correlate with temp changing.
Click to expand...

Thanks! BTW, I live in Ohio, where one day you say "HA! Global Warming my ass, I'd kick a scientist in the ass if my toes weren't frostbitten!" to the next when you say "Ok ok, maybe they were right all along."... then we all laugh at Floridians wearing coats in 60 degree weather.

Of course, this is just humor, but there are many here who don't realize there is a world south of the Ohio and north of Erie, and local temps are all they go by.
 
DigitalDave said:
The 97% consensus they talk about is not necessarily accurate, as that number simply comes from the percentage of scientific articles that have been written Pro or Con. It's somewhat deceiving I believe. Although, even if it were true, I would appreciate that 3%, as they would help keep the scientific community honest, and studies like the one here wouldn't be overlooked. I'm more interested in the truth, and I do fall on the side of believing that we are impacting the warming process, but would be elated if I was wrong. Let me know what studies you've found indicating a cooling, wouldn't mind reading something to challenge my thinking!
Click to expand...

That study, for want of a better word, by John Cook is a crock of shit to be honest and has been rubbished so many times now. As for predicting a cooling trend there are more than a few studies and commentators on the subject.

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/12/...m-2025-to-2050/#sthash.jzON2SVw.ZQiXn7KR.dpbs

http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/russias-pulkovo-observatory-we-could-be.html

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-a-global-cooling-consensus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top