Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 170

Thread: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    10-12-16 @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,849

    NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

    Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

    Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

    Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

    More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.

  2. #2
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:02 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,016

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

    Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

    Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

    Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

    More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.

    The deep oceans ate my global warming . That's old news. LOL

  3. #3
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

    Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

    Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

    Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

    More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.
    Well, that is good or bad?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    10-12-16 @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Well, that is good or bad?
    An interesting question because there are two ways of looking at this find: The superficially "good" thing about this find is that it helps to clarify and explain for the layman how Global Warming can still occur despite the fact that if you started with the previous hottest year on record (1998) and then went to 2013, you allegedly had a "pause" in the warming. Now scientists kept saying that the warming still existed (and 2014 being the new hottest year on record helped to establish that fact...along with the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record took place after 2000), but there were a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory. Finding where that warming has gone will help make those arguments even more absurd and easily dismissable.

    But ultimately, the issue is very bad because a warming of the ocean helps to contribute to higher sea levels, more powerful tropic storms, dramatic impacts on global weather patterns, and it can severely disrupt ocean ecosystems - particularly coral.

    Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    An interesting question because there are two ways of looking at this find: The superficially "good" thing about this find is that it helps to clarify and explain for the layman how Global Warming can still occur despite the fact that if you started with the previous hottest year on record (1998) and then went to 2013, you allegedly had a "pause" in the warming. Now scientists kept saying that the warming still existed (and 2014 being the new hottest year on record helped to establish that fact...along with the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record took place after 2000), but there were a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory. Finding where that warming has gone will help make those arguments even more absurd and easily dismissable.

    But ultimately, the issue is very bad because a warming of the ocean helps to contribute to higher sea levels, more powerful tropic storms, dramatic impacts on global weather patterns, and it can severely disrupt ocean ecosystems - particularly coral.

    Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
    I do not think that it is quite honest to say that " a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory". The implication is just not on. After all, the climate people were and are agitating for a huge amount of spending that at 1998 technology would have caused a major reduction in living standards and, when they were asked why their predictions were not sound, they could not say why. That is an absolute no-go, when you want somebody's money.
    Even with today's technology there will be some changes that are best not talked about, if one wants the public to vote for the investments the 2 percent goal requires. I am watching in Germany, where everyone and the cat are all hipped up on CO2 and all and the lash back to more or less effective measures is severe. The really efficient instruments nobody dares employ.

    And an other thing. Do you really believe the conclusions? Is it really a good idea to start investing in inefficient technology? Is the technology even efficient. I have been looking at this stuff in one way or an other for quite some time. And I have seen some rather bad investments made on sloppy research. I went through that Economic study by N Stern rather closely, as it overlaps with my area of professional. And to tell you the truth, the thing is so optimistic, that a less kind person than I might call it a gross piece of propaganda. And you know? I do not think that would be far off mark. To do that type of thing and going out demanding a massive change in society without your numbers straight? That has done a lot of damage to the call to arms.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    10-12-16 @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I do not think that it is quite honest to say that " a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory". The implication is just not on. After all, the climate people were and are agitating for a huge amount of spending that at 1998 technology would have caused a major reduction in living standards and, when they were asked why their predictions were not sound, they could not say why. That is an absolute no-go, when you want somebody's money.
    You claim that statement is dishonest, but the only reason you offer is an excuse for why they made these statements - i.e. people did not want to make the investment towards mitigation because they did not not want to invest a lot of money of a science they viewed as unsettled.

    This study helps to confirm what 97% of climatologists were claiming during the time period that deniers were alleging that the science was unsettled. Unfortunately, we have already hit the point where the 2 C goal is very unlikely unless we enacted some of the most extreme mitigation efforts - efforts that no one is willing to embrace. Do we need to invest in the technology, even when it is inefficient? Absolutely. We can still mitigate our damage and avoid the worst case scenarios, but we must continue to push through the small reasons for hesitance and embrace technology that will not only help mitigate global warming, but will make our environment cleaner and less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    You claim that statement is dishonest, but the only reason you offer is an excuse for why they made these statements - i.e. people did not want to make the investment towards mitigation because they did not not want to invest a lot of money of a science they viewed as unsettled.

    This study helps to confirm what 97% of climatologists were claiming during the time period that deniers were alleging that the science was unsettled. Unfortunately, we have already hit the point where the 2 C goal is very unlikely unless we enacted some of the most extreme mitigation efforts - efforts that no one is willing to embrace. Do we need to invest in the technology, even when it is inefficient? Absolutely. We can still mitigate our damage and avoid the worst case scenarios, but we must continue to push through the small reasons for hesitance and embrace technology that will not only help mitigate global warming, but will make our environment cleaner and less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
    I am not quite sure, what want to say there. Of course they did not want to invest on science that continually came up against numbers it could not explain. That seems quite natural. If someone shows me a project and there are mistakes in the mat or data or, if there are questions that the projector did not think of and cannot answer? You would be crazy to commit. You might finance some more research and experiment with the technology, but you would be negligent to invest other people's money. As an investment manager you could go to jail even here in Germany.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Holy crap, looking at that distribution and the heat capacity of H2O, ..................................

    we're lucky (at the expense of a lot of change to marine ecosystems) that much heat went into the oceans and not the atmosphere.

  9. #9
    Educator Poor Debater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Last Seen
    09-16-17 @ 01:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    961

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I do not think that it is quite honest to say that " a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory". The implication is just not on. After all, the climate people were and are agitating for a huge amount of spending that at 1998 technology would have caused a major reduction in living standards
    As opposed to doing nothing, which won't cost us a penny? The drought in Syria caused a civil war. What's happened to their living standards?

    The Stern Review estimated that unmitigated climate change will cost us 5-10% of GDP globally, compared to 1-2% of GDP for mitigation. Why any conservative would think that mitigation "costs" anything is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    and, when they were asked why their predictions were not sound, they could not say why.
    Kinda like when we ask a skeptic to point to a prediction since IPCC's First Assessment Report that really isn't sound. All you get are blog postings from bloggers. What you don't get is science from scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Even with today's technology there will be some changes that are best not talked about, if one wants the public to vote for the investments the 2 percent goal requires. I am watching in Germany, where everyone and the cat are all hipped up on CO2 and all and the lash back to more or less effective measures is severe. The really efficient instruments nobody dares employ.
    A number of countries have already decarbonized their electric grids, and there is no good reason we can't. The best way is the fastest way, and the fastest way is the cheapest way: hydro and geothermal where available, wind and solar up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest. Once the grid is decarbonized, we transition the remaining fossil use to electrical, and we're done. This is essentially the "high nuclear" option outlined in the DDPP report -- which is not only cheapest, but might even end up being free, depending on the future price of fossil fuels.

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    And an other thing. Do you really believe the conclusions? Is it really a good idea to start investing in inefficient technology? Is the technology even efficient. I have been looking at this stuff in one way or an other for quite some time. And I have seen some rather bad investments made on sloppy research. I went through that Economic study by N Stern rather closely, as it overlaps with my area of professional. And to tell you the truth, the thing is so optimistic, that a less kind person than I might call it a gross piece of propaganda. And you know? I do not think that would be far off mark. To do that type of thing and going out demanding a massive change in society without your numbers straight? That has done a lot of damage to the call to arms.
    What specifically in Stern do you take exception to? Every machine built by man needs to be replaced in a few decades or less, so why not replace fossil generators with non-fossil generators, as long as you're going to replace anyway? That way, the incremental cost is a fraction of the total outlay.
    Last edited by Poor Debater; 07-10-15 at 02:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater View Post
    As opposed to doing nothing, which won't cost us a penny? The drought in Syria caused a civil war. What's happened to their living standards?

    The Stern Review estimated that unmitigated climate change will cost us 5-10% of GDP globally, compared to 1-2% of GDP for mitigation. Why any conservative would think that mitigation "costs" anything is beyond me.


    Kinda like when we ask a skeptic to point to a prediction since IPCC's First Assessment Report that really isn't sound. All you get are blog postings from bloggers. What you don't get is science from scientists.



    A number of countries have already decarbonized their electric grids, and there is no good reason we can't. The best way is the fastest way, and the fastest way is the cheapest way: hydro and geothermal where available, wind and solar up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest. Once the grid is decarbonized, we transition the remaining fossil use to electrical, and we're done. This is essentially the "high nuclear" option outlined in the DDPP report -- which is not only cheapest, but might even end up being free, depending on the future price of fossil fuels.



    What specifically in Stern do you take exception to? Every machine built by man needs to be replaced in a few decades or less, so why not replace fossil generators with non-fossil generators, as long as you're going to replace anyway? That way, the incremental cost is a fraction of the total outlay.
    It has been quite a while since I read the Stern report, but the defect that sticks out in memory was the method of valuing future cash flow. That invalidated the calculations and so the conclusions to the point of being quite dubious. This means that the 1or 2 percent vs 5 or10 percent is just not true.

    And sure you can replace power plants and decentralized production. It is just the consequences that the population doesn't want and, of course, the inefficient method. It is stupid to go about system change in that way. If we want to reduce climatically active gas emissions then the way to go is via certificate trading and not government management.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •