ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are
Yes, it's obvious the debate rages on and the models and predictions require constant modifications.
With that as fact, it also remains true the only solution being pushed involves the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, every human being on the planet change their lives, and a tacit agreement by all mankind to be subservient to a panel of unknown experts who will decide how they get to live life moving forward.
It's preposterous to believe such a scenario would not be met without extreme skepticism and resistance. Calling these billions who are skeptical names does nothing to forward the AGW agenda.
I don't think you understand what you are reading j-mac. Redress got it exactly right, the DailyMail headlines got it wrong in the headlines but the actual article isn't as bad. That is standard misinformation peddling that you fell for.
The use of "natural variability" is highly misleading in this context. What the study is talking about is the unexpected behavior of the oceans in which heat is cyclically absorbed for decades and then released later. These are long cycles that climate modelers just didn't know about in the 90's. This in turn is what creates the rapid warming and then lull we are observing today. This does not indicate agw being a hoax, or scam, or of manipulated data, or any other silly notion. Even though surface temperatures are not rapidly rising in the last decade or so, we are technically still rapidly warming because of the massive positive net energy imbalance. The upper oceans are warming rapidly and the Earth may also be a "planetary heatsink" which is also absorbing large amounts of heat which is why we're not seeing warming the in deeper levels of the ocean.
The other component here is that the paper supports the upper spectrum of climate model warming to be unlikely looking at these oscillations. They also say it could change but for now it is less likely not impossible or wrong, or a scam, or anything else. This is just statistics. This is why they have different scenarios because they don't have perfect information so they have to interpolate and make educated predictions.
Also wanted to add, when the oscillations are back to the warming phase, we will likely see very rapid warming once again and it could easily eclipse the warming we saw from the 70's to 00's. If you think this means agw is going away or not a problem, you're likely quite wrong.
Yes, it's obvious the debate rages on and the models and predictions require constant modifications.
With that as fact, it also remains true the only solution being pushed involves the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, every human being on the planet change their lives, and a tacit agreement by all mankind to be subservient to a panel of unknown experts who will decide how they get to live life moving forward.
It's preposterous to believe such a scenario would not be met without extreme skepticism and resistance. Calling these billions who are skeptical names does nothing to forward the AGW agenda.