New Climate Science Research

[SDBoiler1]

“It appears as though internal variability has offset warming over the last 15 or so years,” Byron A. Steinman, lead author of the paper and assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told Quartz.










That internal variability is found in the natural cycles of temperature change that occur over years or even decades in the oceans, like Pacific decadal oscillation,” which Steinman said are leading culprits for the warming slowdown.

But researchers say that this trend will reverse itself, perhaps by the year 2020.

This post was edited on 2/27 9:32 AM by SDBoiler1

"Global Warming" Slowed for Last 15 Years

 

[hunkgolden]

Who pays for all of these global warming studies? And just how much money to these scientists and professors make off of these studies? It seems like they've been studying global warming for decades yet none of the computer models that were derived from these studies has been anywhere close to being accurate - at least none that I've seen. So what's the point of all of the billions of $ spent on studying climate and creating false models?

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:

"It appears as though internal variability has offset warming over the last 15 or so years," Byron A. Steinman, lead author of the paper and assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told Quartz.








That internal variability is found in the natural cycles of temperature change that occur over years or even decades in the oceans, like Pacific decadal oscillation," which Steinman said are leading culprits for the warming slowdown.

But researchers say that this trend will reverse itself, perhaps by the year 2020.
This post was edited on 2/27 9:32 AM by SDBoiler1

Good stuff.

I would point out that the warming "slow down" refers to the slow down in warming of temperatures in the lower atmosphere since 1998. The climate system, specifically the oceans, we'll likely see spikes in lower atmospheric temps.


On a weather note, it looks like the perpetual dip in the jet over the eastern US may be showing signs of change. The 8-14 day outlook shows an improved chance of above average temps shifting eastward. I, for one, am ready for a warm up.

 

[ecouch]

This is an OT question but I'm not sure a separate thread would garner much interest.

Do you run any weather stations at home? I'm looking to use an upcoming birthday as an excuse to upgrade my home weather station. I've been looking at the upper-end Davis models. Do you have any experience with home/commercial weather stations?

I know about what to look for regarding sensors and the like. Just looking for input before I lay down a couple thousand dollars.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by ecouch:
This is an OT question but I'm not sure a separate thread would garner much interest.

Do you run any weather stations at home? I'm looking to use an upcoming birthday as an excuse to upgrade my home weather station. I've been looking at the upper-end Davis models. Do you have any experience with home/commercial weather stations?

I know about what to look for regarding sensors and the like. Just looking for input before I lay down a couple thousand dollars.

Unfortunately, I do not.

Couple reasons for this:

1) Cost - I've not yet reached the point where I can justify dropping that amount of cash into a home weather station. I'm sure I would love it if I did, but I already spend quite a bit (mostly time) on other hobbies (gardening).
2) Access to all sorts of models, radar, & observations can be had for free via sites like wunderground.com & www.nhc.noaa.gov, not to mention university facilities. I already spend time on sites like this, so I'm hesitant to invest in something related like a home station.

That said, I'd be curious to hear your review if you do invest in something. My next big ticket expenditure will probably involve something more practical like a PV system, but who knows.

 

[threeeputtt]

The question is STILL not if but, why? I have seen glaciers recede in Alaska? But, why? This has been happening for 10000 years.

For those that buy Washington "everyone agrees" or "97%" etc it is just simply not true. Everyone attacks to pro and the con debate. Here is one: skeptic. There are many that will try and tear him down. READ his synopsis.

The second scientist from MIT has continually been shouted down. http://climatechange.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=009973 I know many that support him.

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

I am NOT a scientist and would guess almost every poster here isn't. I am not convinced of why? I have learned science is often WRONG. Look at medicine and subjects like coffee and aspirin. It is still not settled;

This science is NOT settled either.





This post was edited on 3/3 11:49 AM by threeeputtt

skeptic

 

[Beeazlebub]

Milankovitch cycles do nothing to "disprove" the fact that greenhouse gases trap heat within the earth's climate system. Anyone with any training in the climate field is well aware of the fact that orbital cycles affect climatic processes. The important thing to understand is that orbital cycles influence climate on a much longer time scale than we've observed over the course of the last 150 years or so.

The process of science is never "settled", as there is always the possibility that new evidence will arise & theories will be tweaked in order to better explain the phenomenon. You can either throw your hands in the air and conclude that science never really "knows" anything, or you can proceed with the explanation that best fits with current observations/data. Any rational discussion over any subject must be grounded in the latter option.

If it is true that greenhouse gases are not presently the dominant force in the climate system, it would mean that almost every atmospheric chemistry and physics text would need to be re-written. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate at which heat escapes the climate system, and the earth is accumulating heat as a result. Anthropogenic global warming and the resulting climate change are well established fields of study, and 97% consensus amongst climate scientists is likely too low.

 

[threeeputtt]

"Anthropogenic global warming and the resulting climate change are well established fields of study, and 97% consensus amongst climate scientists is likely too low. "

If you say so it must be true? I know almost a complete scientific department at Purdue (no I won't embarrass plus they don't want to be shouted down) that would disagree with that statement but "experts agree" and the like are too easy. I would presume the "pizza association of America" says pizza is very good for you also. There, you and I have solved all the worlds problems!

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by threeeputtt:
"Anthropogenic global warming and the resulting climate change are well established fields of study, and 97% consensus amongst climate scientists is likely too low. "

If you say so it must be true? I know almost a complete scientific department at Purdue (no I won't embarrass plus they don't want to be shouted down) that would disagree with that statement but "experts agree" and the like are too easy. I would presume the "pizza association of America" says pizza is very good for you also. There, you and I have solved all the worlds problems!

That's nice. I don't want to get into a credential pissing contest on an anonymous sports message board, but I can guarantee the department to which you refer isn't EAPS.

 

[threeeputtt]

You are correct, it is not EAPS. Not to beat a dead horse debate but, on many issues you can only get a plurality much less a majority on many areas of science. You will probably be surprised that I want renewable energies. However, the barriers and problems are formidable. T. Boone Pickens an oil man has developed wind turbines but, he has run into immense problems with transmission lines. I find TESLA interesting. When you ask the average consumer they will say the battery is the source of "green energy". You and I know it is simply a storage device of energy. Ethanol sounded great 35 years ago but, our own Purdue has pretty well chronicled its short fallings. Renewables will happen, I just want rational debate on the costs, disruptions, and other problems before we abandon what we do know.









This post was edited on 3/3 9:29 PM by threeeputtt

 

[ecouch]

Lindzen has never been "shouted down". His ideas have been shown to be incomplete and well, wrong, via the scientific method. The fact that he still clings to them as a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation doesn't change the results.

Lindzen is actually a treasure trove of climate research, but not based on the validity of his work. He is know as being the "wrongest the longest". His ideas have spurred quite a bit of research.

It's OK to be wrong, and Dick is a smart person, but most people don't
really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin
ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of
being wrong, and that's OK because if you are wrong in an interesting
way that advances the science, I think it's great to be wrong and he
has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate
science.

-Ray Pierrehumbert



Source

 

[ecouch]

Thanks for the response. I'm a weather geek, have been since high school. Of course, now I want a PV system as well.

 

[Purdue85]

no. you. didn't.

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:

"It appears as though internal variability has offset warming over the last 15 or so years," Byron A. Steinman, lead author of the paper and assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told Quartz.








That internal variability is found in the natural cycles of temperature change that occur over years or even decades in the oceans, like Pacific decadal oscillation," which Steinman said are leading culprits for the warming slowdown.

But researchers say that this trend will reverse itself, perhaps by the year 2020.
This post was edited on 2/27 9:32 AM by SDBoiler1

Did you just use "climate", "science" , and "research" in the same subject line??

No, really ... it's bad form to lead a joke with the PUNCH LINE.