What could be the cause for sixteen years of no increase in global temperatures but an increase in carbon dioxide ? Are the climate models the problem or is there another cause ?Climate is a function of several factors over many years. Temperatures for any given years are subject to the vagaries of statistical probability. There is no problem with the theory, only with the question, which misapprehends climate change. The question is like asking what caused heads to come up three times in a row in a series of coin flips. It's been proven over and over again that the average global temperature is steadily and inexorably rising--more quickly than it has in the past --and nearly every climate scientist agrees. The National Acadmy od Sciences agrees. Those scientists, among the best in the world, know about the "vagaries of statistical probability" better than anyone, and they know this isn't one of them. LL.
In addition to mu previous post:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
âThere is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activitiesâ, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.
From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.
^ âClimate Change 2001: The Scientific Basisâ. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
^ âClimate Change 2001: The Scientific Basisâ. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
^ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p.958 â IPCC
Here something to check out; http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissionsThe title says it all:
"The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away" Mar 30th 2013Since we actually don't know the impact of 3.0° climate sensitivity compared to 3.5° or 2.75° or 2.5° it's all pretty theoretical sort of stuff. What we do know is that the impacts of greenhouse gas forced global warming lags atmospheric injections by two/three decades. Meaning that today we are looking at the results of levels from the 80s/90s - given how much weather weirding we have already seen and appreciating that the momentum is going one way only, {contrary to denialist's delusional conjectures of some society saving turnaround just around the corner} - we have much reason to be scared no matter what the final "climate sensitivity" number actually turns out to be.
Meaning that today we are looking at the results of levels from the 80s/90s - given how much weather weirding we have already seen and appreciating that the momentum is going one way only, {contrary to denialist's delusional conjectures of some society saving turnaround just around the corner} - we have much reason to be scared no matter what the final "climate sensitivity" number actually turns out to be.Yeah, mess with a system you don't understand when your existence depends on it and there is no spare. Sure, like we can send millions of people to Mars. Of course no matter how bad it gets here it will be really difficult to make it worse than Mars. psik
Here something to check out;And here is something else to look at. Making Sense of Sensitivity⊠and Keeping it in Perspective] The Economist apparently has a history of siding with business interests over actual science. Now I'm experimenting to see how much text I have to add to keep the #@%^&$* forum software from thinking I'm a spammer. Didn't work. I removed Gary's original link. Let's see if this works. Yep. Stupid software. It won't let long-standing members post two links but will let newbies post multiple links in their signatures.
Here something to check out;And here is something else to look at. Making Sense of Sensitivity⊠and Keeping it in Perspective] The Economist apparently has a history of siding with business interests over actual science. That's great. A debaste on how much we don't know. They don't know why the temperatures have drifted downwards last decade and the deep oceans have gotten warmer than expected. So for all we know things might rise faster than expected 5 or 10 years from now for unknown reasons. Screwing up a system that you do not understand is really dumb. Like economists are so smart. psik
That's great. A debaste on how much we don't know. They don't know why the temperatures have drifted downwards last decade and the deep oceans have gotten warmer than expected. So for all we know things might rise faster than expected 5 or 10 years from now for unknown reasons. Screwing up a system that you do not understand is really dumb. Like economists are so smart. psikLa Niña probably has a lot to do with moderating air temperature increases over the past decade. Natural variation is also probably playing a part. But the deep oceans holding heat does not bode well for how much the temperature will rise when the next El Niño event starts.
Why not a little update?
Yes, the devil is in the clouds!
Unfortunately,
Seems that every time we collect and process more information, itâs bad news for business as usual.
Jan 27, 2024 update on Climate Sensitivity - the more we know, the scarier it is.
In this video I explain what climate sensitivity is and why it is important. Climate sensitivity is a number that roughly speaking tells us how fast climate change will get worse. A few years ago, after various software improvements, a bunch of climate models began having a much higher climate sensitivity than previously. Climate scientists have come up with reasons for why to ignore this. I think itâs a bad idea to ignore this.
We are heading for 2 degrees increase with the current republican democrat leadership in charge
How do you define who is in charge?
President
Speaker of the House
Senate Majority
Balance of Governors
Owners of Corporations
Who is buying gas
Itâs global warming so who is the leadership of the world? Whoâs in charge?
Right Sherlock, so what?
As in, do you have any point beyond fabricating enemies and waving your self-righteous finger of condemnation?
Oh, and to be sure, itâs not like there arenât some genuine villains, but all they did was play to the coddles masses and their dreams of ever more, more, more . . .
Do you need a crash course in the machinery of government? Well informed and engaged.
No. I was interested in a discussion about who really pulls the strings. Money, militaries, consumers, small business owners, some guy in their motherâs basement?
How can an informed and engaged person ask such a question of American capitalism ?
Well, I am a person, not a conversation bot named âsnarkyâ. So, freedom of speech I guess.
Just not a well informed and engaged one by asking that question or a massive troll to different voices
But, ahah, if you were the troll, thatâs exactly what you would say.
You would know you say
I think I broke the program
1 Like
