Has global warming ground to a halt?

There are 20 comments on the New Scientist story from Jan 9, 2013, titled Has global warming ground to a halt?. In it, New Scientist reports that:

The UK's Met Office has downgraded its forecast for warming at the Earth's surface over the next five years.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Magnolia, TX

#1 Jan 9, 2013
It's about physics and chemistry, folks.

When we burn fossil fuels, we emit greenhouse gases. And "the fundamental physics about how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere hasn't changed."

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#2 Jan 9, 2013
It appears that by default & brute force computer modelling, the Met office Uk may have finally cottoned on to the fact that che climate mode changed as a result of warming from the prior model climate mode#2 (made by Jason {last name uknown} in the 1980s which was the prior model used for the predictions...

To the current (changed to in April 2012) climate mode#3 which is rather more efficient at cooling the planet.

If it works really hard at it, it may eventually be able to identify climate modes #1 (cold weather default 2 equatorial rainbelts with a dry semi desert zone between them), and climate mode#4 (the most efficient at cooling the planet, responsible for the growth of the laurentide ice cap during glacial periods).

Have fun catching up guys.

Had you not been ruled in HR by morons, slander wallahs, & ideological people processors... I may have been able to point it out in your office!

Have a nice day: Ag
PHD

Overton, TX

#3 Jan 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
It's about physics and chemistry, folks.
When we burn fossil fuels, we emit greenhouse gases. And "the fundamental physics about how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere hasn't changed."
Very well now show all your own work to prove it. Still waiting.
SpaceBlues

Magnolia, TX

#4 Jan 9, 2013
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
It appears that by default & brute force computer modelling, the Met office Uk may have finally cottoned on to the fact that che climate mode changed as a result of warming from the prior model climate mode#2 (made by Jason {last name uknown} in the 1980s which was the prior model used for the predictions...
To the current (changed to in April 2012) climate mode#3 which is rather more efficient at cooling the planet.
If it works really hard at it, it may eventually be able to identify climate modes #1 (cold weather default 2 equatorial rainbelts with a dry semi desert zone between them), and climate mode#4 (the most efficient at cooling the planet, responsible for the growth of the laurentide ice cap during glacial periods).
Have fun catching up guys.
Had you not been ruled in HR by morons, slander wallahs, & ideological people processors... I may have been able to point it out in your office!
Have a nice day: Ag
Hi Mr G. You sound hurt.

Is that the same Jason like the satellites'?

Or: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do...

Or: http://www.google.com/search...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#5 Jan 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
It's about physics and chemistry, folks.
When we burn fossil fuels, we emit greenhouse gases. And "the fundamental physics about how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere hasn't changed."
//////////
'phud feces face' wrote:
..... show all your own work to prove it.
//////////
litesong wrote:
SpaceBlues doesn't('phud feces face' may not understand the word, since its spelled properly), have to. AGW scientists have already proved it.
PHD

Overton, TX

#6 Jan 9, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
SpaceBlues wrote:
It's about physics and chemistry, folks.
When we burn fossil fuels, we emit greenhouse gases. And "the fundamental physics about how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere hasn't changed."
//////////
'I pinheadlites' wrote:
.....I can't show my own work to prove it.
//////////
""pinheadlitesout "litesong wrote:
SpaceBlues doesn't('pinheadlitesout' may not understand the word, since its spelled properly), have to. AGW scientists have already proved that "pinheadlitesout" dosen't really really know it.
Now "pinheadlitesout" there you have it the truth learn from it.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#7 Jan 11, 2013
Because of the lower solar activity and the negative phase of the PDO it is expected that the years around 2030 will be the coldest in the upcomming climate phase.

Solar activity is the 'heater' of the oceans. Since the middle of the 20th century we have had very high solar activity. The very high solar activity caused the oceans to 'heat up'. The oceans are our major climate maker and a warmer ocean makes for a warmer climate.

Solar activity has a pattern and as seen in the past, when our sun goes thru a very high phase it is most often followed by a very low phase.

Predictions are for this and the next two '11' year cycles to be very low. The current cycle 24 is very low and is now expected to last from 14 to 17 years. The longer cycle 24 persists, the lower and longer cycle 25 will be.

The lower the solar activity, the less heat the oceans absorb, the cooler the climate.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#8 Jan 11, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
It's about physics and chemistry, folks.
When we burn fossil fuels, we emit greenhouse gases. And "the fundamental physics about how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere hasn't changed."
Yet the understanding has. What is happening is people discovered that the models they were using had been wrong and what people like you understand to be true in fact wasn't true at all. Little issues like the fact that the CO2 in fossil fuels had once been a part of the atmosphere and yet the earth thrived.

What this really about is that we are about ready to go into a cooling cycle that happens about every 30-35 years. Just like the warming cycles that is getting ready to end. There are some who know the truth and are working hard to get ahead of the curve.

Funny, how Europe last year had some record snow fall and record cold yet people like your are still stuck in the past. I wonder when you will finally realize that you were fooled.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#9 Jan 11, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Because of the lower solar activity and the negative phase of the PDO it is expected that the years around 2030 will be the coldest in the upcomming climate phase.
Solar activity is the 'heater' of the oceans. Since the middle of the 20th century we have had very high solar activity. The very high solar activity caused the oceans to 'heat up'. The oceans are our major climate maker and a warmer ocean makes for a warmer climate.
Solar activity has a pattern and as seen in the past, when our sun goes thru a very high phase it is most often followed by a very low phase.
Predictions are for this and the next two '11' year cycles to be very low. The current cycle 24 is very low and is now expected to last from 14 to 17 years. The longer cycle 24 persists, the lower and longer cycle 25 will be.
The lower the solar activity, the less heat the oceans absorb, the cooler the climate.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth.

She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:

"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.

"Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.

"So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.

"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#10 Jan 11, 2013
tina anne wrote:
What this really about is that we are about ready to go into a cooling cycle that happens about every 30-35 years. Just like the warming cycles that is getting ready to end.
Ain't gonna happen:

A paper published last month in the journal Climate Dynamics, authored by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres, combined different models to produce a forecast for the next decade.

It said: "Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts."

However the paper concluded that, "in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
PHD

Overton, TX

#11 Jan 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't gonna happen:
A paper published last month in the journal Climate Dynamics, authored by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres, combined different models to produce a forecast for the next decade.
It said: "Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts."
However the paper concluded that, "in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Ain't gonna happen? They produced a forecast AKA guess work. So in their first statement itís a forecast and in the later itís a prediction. Ahh the wonders of scientist it a matter of opinion.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#12 Jan 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth.
She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:
"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.
"Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.
"So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.
"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Again? Hey if we lose 1*C of warming, then that out does the .7*C of warming we have accumulated. Solar activity in the next 30 years or lack thereof can wipe out the entire 160 year gain in warming.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#13 Jan 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't gonna happen:
A paper published last month in the journal Climate Dynamics, authored by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres, combined different models to produce a forecast for the next decade.
It said: "Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts."
However the paper concluded that, "in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Another computer model. At least they are finding more parameters. Interesting that the additional parameters are indicating less warming than when those parameters were left out of the prior computer models.

Reality, until they can find a way to include all aspects of climate, the models will remain unreliable.
PHD

Overton, TX

#14 Jan 12, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Again? Hey if we lose 1*C of warming, then that out does the .7*C of warming we have accumulated. Solar activity in the next 30 years or lack thereof can wipe out the entire 160 year gain in warming.
Nice try but youíre responding to an empty chair. Save yourself some time the "pinheadlitesout and spacedoutblues are much on the same playing field as Fairy Lame.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#15 Jan 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try but youíre responding to an empty chair. Save yourself some time the "pinheadlitesout and spacedoutblues are much on the same playing field as Fairy Lame.
It's entertainment.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#16 Jan 12, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Again? Hey if we lose 1*C of warming, then that out does the .7*C of warming we have accumulated. Solar activity in the next 30 years or lack thereof can wipe out the entire 160 year gain in warming.
Wrong.

Even if we lose 1 degree (a big if) we get at least 1.5 (and almost certainly much more) from CO2.

This is waht the science says.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#17 Jan 12, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Another computer model. At least they are finding more parameters. Interesting that the additional parameters are indicating less warming than when those parameters were left out of the prior computer models.
Reality, until they can find a way to include all aspects of climate, the models will remain unreliable.
The models are unreliable.

We can't be sure if we'll get 2 degrees of warming or six.

Fools like you say we don't know anything so we know nothing- let's take the risk.

More rational people say we have a good idea of the risk, and it's not worth taking.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#18 Jan 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The models are unreliable.
We can't be sure if we'll get 2 degrees of warming or six.
Fools like you say we don't know anything so we know nothing- let's take the risk.
More rational people say we have a good idea of the risk, and it's not worth taking.
Correction:

We don't know everything so we know nothing..
PHD

Overton, TX

#19 Jan 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Even if we lose 1 degree (a big if) we get at least 1.5 (and almost certainly much more) from CO2.
This is waht the science says.
Ok but science corrects errors to discover more errors that show their correction to errors were in error.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#20 Jan 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction:
We don't know everything so we know nothing..
We don't know everything. Doesn't mean we know nothing. Most often it means we know just enough to do some real damage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama turns up heat on climate change debate in... 1 hr Mothra 213
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 53,054
'Talkin Science Game': a game in which the firs... 4 hr TTITT 102
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 hr litesong 34,227
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 6 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 3,818
There Are Essentially Two Greenhouse Gases 11 hr Earthling-1 48
Global warming and Earthquakes 16 hr IBdaMann 3
More from around the web