Editorials Address Conundrum of Halted Warming

[LowDown]

Data shows global temperatures aren't rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics -- or hush up the figures. --Axel Bojanowski, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel Online, 23 September 2013

The Met Office method of predicting climate change contains flaws that cause it to overestimate the warming Britain will experience, according to a report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The conflict between computer model predictions and actual measurements of the temperature is being discussed this week in Stockholm by climate scientists and government officials from around the world. The IPCC’s summary is expected to include an admission that there are weaknesses in the results from computer models which appear at odds with the slowdown in the rate of global warming since 1998. --Ben Webster, The Times, 24 September 2013

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an image problem. It appears unsure how to regain the trust of voters and politicians, but not of the science it is supposed to assess. This week’s report is expected to conclude with more confidence than ever that humans have caused more than half the planet’s warming in the past 60 years. This may seem provocative in the circumstances, but the truth is that the real question for scientists now is not whether climate change is happening but how fast. So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate. --The Times Editorial, 24 September 2013

So, it’s come down to this — we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the climate models — the only source of scary scenarios — are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. It’s an “insurance policy,” Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement. This is a peculiar species of insurance policy, one where the premiums that we’re being asked to pay total literally trillions of dollars, where the perils that we’re being protected against are ill- or undefined, and where — should any of the perils ever materialize — no benefits will be paid out to us policyholders. --Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, 24 September 2013

There appears to be an internal debate at the IPCC about whether or not they should tell people the truth about climate change, but the cat is out of the bag.

HT: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

 

[Deuce]

That's not the internal debate, no.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's not the internal debate, no.

They're losing the Germans.

Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth - Bojanowski, et al, Der Spiegel

 

[polgara]

They're losing the Germans.

Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth - Bojanowski, et al, Der Spiegel

When people face the possibility of paying trillions of dollars for something, most would agree that it should be based on actual data, and not assumptions that something might occur at some point in the future! To even have a discussion on whether or not the public should be told the truth is very disturbing, because it implies that an agenda takes precedence over facts! The more they fight to keep it going, the worse they will look, and people will become more and more skeptical! :thumbdown: This will prove interesting to watch!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

 

[Jack Hays]

When people face the possibility of paying trillions of dollars for something, most would agree that it should be based on actual data, and not assumptions that something might occur at some point in the future! To even have a discussion on whether or not the public should be told the truth is very disturbing, because it implies that an agenda takes precedence over facts! The more they fight to keep it going, the worse they will look, and people will become more and more skeptical! :thumbdown: This will prove interesting to watch!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Well said. Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

 

[Deuce]

When people face the possibility of paying trillions of dollars for something, most would agree that it should be based on actual data, and not assumptions that something might occur at some point in the future! To even have a discussion on whether or not the public should be told the truth is very disturbing, because it implies that an agenda takes precedence over facts! The more they fight to keep it going, the worse they will look, and people will become more and more skeptical! :thumbdown: This will prove interesting to watch!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

That's not the discussion.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's not the discussion.

Oh, but it is. The AGW agenda wastes money better used on real problems.eace

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Oh, but it is. The AGW agenda wastes money better used on real problems.eace

does the subject of this article count as a real problem?

Rutgers fish surveys show effects of climate change - Philly.com

 

[Jack Hays]

does the subject of this article count as a real problem?

Rutgers fish surveys show effects of climate change - Philly.com

It's an interesting article, although no causation is established.eace

 

[polgara]

That's not the discussion.

I read the editorials from Der Spiegel, Financial Times, etc, posted above by LowDown, and it appears to me that since the computer models on which they based their assumptions are apparently flawed, a little face-saving is being considered here. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if this is truthfully explained now, rather than later. :shock:

Good evening, Deuce: :2wave:

 

[Deuce]

I read the editorials from Der Spiegel, Financial Times, etc, posted above by LowDown, and it appears to me that since the computer models on which they based their assumptions are apparently flawed, a little face-saving is being considered here. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if this is truthfully explained now, rather than later. :shock:

Good evening, Deuce: :2wave:

It might appear that way to someone who uses journalists as primary sources on very complicated scientific subjects, yes.

One big factor in the "flaw" in the models was that the sun did not behave in the manner that the models assumed it would. Its output decreased. (remember how all the "skeptics" suddenly started talking about an impending ice age? while simultaneously calling me an alarmist, interestingly enough...)

Climate models aren't a "prediction" in the sense that they're saying "this is what will happen." Rather, they're a sort of "what if" situation. "If this happens, we expect the climate will respond that way." The sun may be starting a multi-decade cooling trend, but it's not like there was a way to predict that before. And if it does do that, a multi-decade flattening of temperatures or even a decline would be expected. This doesn't suddenly make CO2 emissions all fine and dandy.

There's more to it, of course. In a subject like this, there always is. We're seeing "skeptics" misinterpret papers regarding internal climate variability like the pacific decadal oscillation. Basically, the ocean seems to have taken in more heat than the scientists thought it would. (best I can gather, anyway)

What are the implications for this going forward? Tough to say, I'm just some dude. But science is an iterative process. Observe, analyze, repeat.

 

[flogger]

When people face the possibility of paying trillions of dollars for something, most would agree that it should be based on actual data, and not assumptions that something might occur at some point in the future! To even have a discussion on whether or not the public should be told the truth is very disturbing, because it implies that an agenda takes precedence over facts! The more they fight to keep it going, the worse they will look, and people will become more and more skeptical! :thumbdown: This will prove interesting to watch!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

'Pay more tax and save the planet ' .........has been a winning formula for decades now. Its why the politicians have always been so keen on this and have publicly espoused the non existent scientific certainties and absolutes with such fervour. This is now estimated to be costing $250 Billion per annum globally (and rising) despite no discernable warming having taken place for 15 years or more. You gotta hand it to them . Its a scam thats certainly worked !

 

[code1211]

does the subject of this article count as a real problem?

Rutgers fish surveys show effects of climate change - Philly.com

What do you assert that this article is demonstrating?

 

[code1211]

It might appear that way to someone who uses journalists as primary sources on very complicated scientific subjects, yes.

One big factor in the "flaw" in the models was that the sun did not behave in the manner that the models assumed it would. Its output decreased. (remember how all the "skeptics" suddenly started talking about an impending ice age? while simultaneously calling me an alarmist, interestingly enough...)

Climate models aren't a "prediction" in the sense that they're saying "this is what will happen." Rather, they're a sort of "what if" situation. "If this happens, we expect the climate will respond that way." The sun may be starting a multi-decade cooling trend, but it's not like there was a way to predict that before. And if it does do that, a multi-decade flattening of temperatures or even a decline would be expected. This doesn't suddenly make CO2 emissions all fine and dandy.

There's more to it, of course. In a subject like this, there always is. We're seeing "skeptics" misinterpret papers regarding internal climate variability like the pacific decadal oscillation. Basically, the ocean seems to have taken in more heat than the scientists thought it would. (best I can gather, anyway)

What are the implications for this going forward? Tough to say, I'm just some dude. But science is an iterative process. Observe, analyze, repeat.

And yet the ocean is not warming. How can the ocean be taking on more heat and yet not be warming?

The Diehards are saying that CO2 is the prime driver of climate and that the rise of CO2 will cause warming. The IPCC predicts a range of warming, laughably, between 1 and 6.5 degrees over the next 87 years.

Regardless of all of that, though, CO2 is once again shown to be bit player in this drama as the CO2 climbs and temperatures fall.

 

[Threegoofs]

Hey- I wonder if there have been any editorials on this in scientific journals.

Nope.

Oh wait. There is one in Nature. It reads:

"Returning to the 'hiatus' in global warming, the discussion on the slowdown in warming is often misconstrued in the media. It is not that warming has stalled, but rather that the rate of increase has not been as high as predicted."

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n8/full/nclimate1978.html

But please. Tell us what Glenn Beck says about this. Because it's kinda similar, right?

 

[gslack]

It might appear that way to someone who uses journalists as primary sources on very complicated scientific subjects, yes.

One big factor in the "flaw" in the models was that the sun did not behave in the manner that the models assumed it would. Its output decreased. (remember how all the "skeptics" suddenly started talking about an impending ice age? while simultaneously calling me an alarmist, interestingly enough...)

Climate models aren't a "prediction" in the sense that they're saying "this is what will happen." Rather, they're a sort of "what if" situation. "If this happens, we expect the climate will respond that way." The sun may be starting a multi-decade cooling trend, but it's not like there was a way to predict that before. And if it does do that, a multi-decade flattening of temperatures or even a decline would be expected. This doesn't suddenly make CO2 emissions all fine and dandy.

There's more to it, of course. In a subject like this, there always is. We're seeing "skeptics" misinterpret papers regarding internal climate variability like the pacific decadal oscillation. Basically, the ocean seems to have taken in more heat than the scientists thought it would. (best I can gather, anyway)

What are the implications for this going forward? Tough to say, I'm just some dude. But science is an iterative process. Observe, analyze, repeat.

The looming ice age claims were from many of the same scientists who now claim impending warming.

If climate models are a "what if" they really aren't reliable at all then are they.. The suns energy is the main factor in our climate. And if as you say is correct, and the sun decreased in output, than that should give you a clue that IT drives climate,and not some naturally occurring trace gas..

 

[KLATTU]

Hey- Oh wait. There is one in Nature. It reads:

"Returning to the 'hiatus' in global warming, the discussion on the slowdown in warming is often misconstrued in the media. It is not that warming has stalled, but rather that the rate of increase has not been as high as predicted."

[?

I suppose it's true depending upon the end points you choose, but the statement is disingenous. What is being talked about in the media is that warming has stalled for the past 15 years. Not slowed down. Not 'not as high as predicted' .STALLED.
Just another example of non-reliable climate info from Nature.

( You wouldn't understand)

 

[Deuce]

The looming ice age claims were from many of the same scientists who now claim impending warming.

If climate models are a "what if" they really aren't reliable at all then are they.. The suns energy is the main factor in our climate. And if as you say is correct, and the sun decreased in output, than that should give you a clue that IT drives climate,and not some naturally occurring trace gas..

Um, no. I'm not talking about the media spectacle in the 70s. This was recent.

You don't think the sun is the only variable in global temperature, do you?

 

[Threegoofs]

I suppose it's true depending upon the end points you choose, but the statement is disingenous. What is being talked about in the media is that warming has stalled for the past 15 years. Not slowed down. Not 'not as high as predicted' .STALLED.
Just another example of non-reliable climate info from Nature.

( You wouldn't understand)

If Nature, unarguably the top multidisciplinary journal in the world, is not to be believed, then it's hard to argue the topic rationally.

 

[VanceMack]

'Pay more tax and save the planet ' .........has been a winning formula for decades now. Its why the politicians have always been so keen on this and have publicly espoused the non existent scientific certainties and absolutes with such fervour. This is now estimated to be costing $250 Billion per annum globally (and rising) despite no discernable warming having taken place for 15 years or more. You gotta hand it to them . Its a scam thats certainly worked !

Close...but not quite. Its "pay more tax and save the planet as long as there is a republican presidential administration. Keep in mind...all the global warming nutjobs were silent during the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. Then...suddenly, GWB is elected and they are flying around the globe in private jets and traveling to conferences in SUVS (funny as hell BTW) to decry pollution, AGW, and the eeeeeevil George Bush and his failure to pass Kyoto. Then...Obama elected...and its cricket time again.

When you have no character, you have no cause.

 

[Papa bull]

does the subject of this article count as a real problem?

Rutgers fish surveys show effects of climate change - Philly.com

No. It does not.

Many factors could be at work, fisheries experts say. Ocean currents and fishing pressure itself affect where fish go. And as anyone who chases fish for fun or a paycheck knows, huge natural variability is a given.

But what tells researchers that climate change is likely a significant factor is much simpler. It's temperature.

Temperature is one of the most important environmental influences for marine organisms, affecting their metabolism, growth, and other factors.

"A couple degrees of difference will cause fish to move," said Jeff Kaelin of Lund's Fisheries in Cape May, whose boats target 20 species. "There are very narrow niches where they survive."

While Able has been collecting his larvae, other researchers have been monitoring the water temperature at a nearby boat basin. Amid year-to-year variability, the overall trend is clear: The water is warming. For 12 of the last 15 years, temperatures have been above average.

The fisheries experts opinion is that many factors could be at work and are at work. I can guarantee you that fishing pressure has had a huge impact on the east coast fisheries. But also, of course, as the warmists like to re-iterate, temperatures along the east coast have been slightly higher than usual for much of the last 15 years.

So fish stocks have shifted a bit in response, which is completely natural. The bottom line is that it's not a problem and since we're going through global cooling, this is going to change again. It won't be a problem then, either.

 

[flogger]

Close...but not quite. Its "pay more tax and save the planet as long as there is a republican presidential administration. Keep in mind...all the global warming nutjobs were silent during the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. Then...suddenly, GWB is elected and they are flying around the globe in private jets and traveling to conferences in SUVS (funny as hell BTW) to decry pollution, AGW, and the eeeeeevil George Bush and his failure to pass Kyoto. Then...Obama elected...and its cricket time again.

When you have no character, you have no cause.

I'm not American so I wasnt really trying to score party political smartie points with that statement. This issue is a global one now the cost of which goes way beyond such US centric myopia. For example the international space station is the most expensive project in human history costing around $150 billion over its 12 year lifetime (in deployment and running costs) with much international grumbling over that expense . Globally in just ONE YEAR we will soon be spending twice as much on the non existent AGW 'problem' (?). We are further along the curve with this here in Europe with our energy bills set to double by 2020 due to green taxation we are told is 'addressing' this ! Personally I'm already seeing this with a 40% rise in my unit energy cost since 2009 entirely due to such taxes. Again I restate the irony of all this is there has been no discernable warming in 15 years now

 

[VanceMack]

I'm not American so I wasnt really trying to score party political smartie points with that statement. This issue is a global one now the cost of which goes way beyond such US centric myopia. For example the international space station is the most expensive project in human history costing around $150 billion over its 12 year lifetime (in deployment and running costs) with much international grumbling over that expense . Globally in just ONE YEAR we will soon be spending twice as much on the non existent AGW 'problem' (?). We are further along the curve with this here in Europe with our energy bills set to double by 2020 due to green taxation we are told is 'addressing' this ! Personally I'm already seeing this with a 40% rise in my unit energy cost since 2009 entirely due to such taxes. Again I restate the irony of all this is there has been no discernable warming in 15 years now

Globally, its still an issue where there are taxes to plunder. Dont know about the politics of it in the UK, but in the US? thats all it is. Oh...sure...you have the occasional true believer that proclaims how they and 'the movement' are still alive and well. One or two of them even show up at demonstrations. IF the demonstrations arent cancelled because it is too cold.

 

[KLATTU]

If Nature, unarguably the top multidisciplinary journal in the world, is not to be believed, then it's hard to argue the topic rationally.

Well I just showed you where they were comlpetely FOS, so there you go.

 

[gslack]

Um, no. I'm not talking about the media spectacle in the 70s. This was recent.

You don't think the sun is the only variable in global temperature, do you?

So what are you talking about then? A few people on this board or somebody you know, what?

I didn't say variable at all dude. Don't put words in my mouth. The suns more than a variable it's the reason we have a climate. Calling it a variable is like calling Einstein a bright fellow..

What are you claiming that CO2 is the only variable in global temperature?

See I can do that too..