Well I Never: Study Shows Global Warming May Be Occuring Much More Slowly Than Previously Thought

[Weatherman2020]

In other words, they’re admitting that their models of a decade ago didn’t reflect reality, which is exactly what we skeptics were saying then and vilified for. As Pat Michaels puts it, data is the modeler’s burden.

Yes, the science was never settled as the anti-science left proclaimed.

Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

You mean to tell me they had their models WRONG? DO they even have one that is close to being right? Is this their "cover my ass" moment because they are exposed by real science?

So many questions....

The reality is, they do not know how to model the system, because they still do not understand it... A stunning admission about their once "settled" science..

 

[OldLady]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

NO.. I am criticizing their political pontifications devoid of science.. Anyone who uses system modeling in real life understands this..

 

[Weatherman2020]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Al Gore to Congress: "The science is settled."
Al Gore to the UN: "First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the that climate is warming at a more rapid rate..."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Yes. Especially insofar as "owning one's mistakes" is not a behavior common to the genre of climate science deniers, be it with regard to climate science or much of anything else.

 

[TNHarley]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Its the politics

 

[Billy_Bob]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Yes. Especially insofar as "owning one's mistakes" is not a behavior common to the genre of climate science deniers, be it with regard to climate science or much of anything else.

This is called failing Empirical Review.. The system modeled does not match the observed evidence..

 

[toobfreak]

In other words, they’re admitting that their models of a decade ago didn’t reflect reality, which is exactly what we skeptics were saying then and vilified for. As Pat Michaels puts it, data is the modeler’s burden.

Yes, the science was never settled as the anti-science left proclaimed.

Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests.

My, my, the agenda-driven, politically and economically-charged issue of Climate Change / Global-Warming has finally been shown for the gaseous balloon it really is. Now as all their predictions are slowly shown phony, years after they had initially hoped by now to have the whole carbon credits thing in place, the data is coming in showing the models more and more off as time goes on and all the Libs's wailing wrong again! REAL scientists don't rally for global, economic changes that would cost trillions and trillions and untold burden on billions of people without being SURE of their facts. Instead, what we are finding out now is that as time goes on, they will eventually come full circle back to the same conclusion they had in the 1960's that we are heading for the next mini-ice age. Are Leftists ever right about ANYTHING?! ANYTHING AT ALL???

Meantime, there is still time for Al Gore to buy stock in Carrier Furnaces and road salt.

 

[OldLady]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Al Gore to Congress: "The science is settled."
Al Gore to the UN: "First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the that climate is warming at a more rapid rate..."

Well, your first mistake is taking a politician's word for it. He's not a scientist.

 

[OldLady]

Well, to one and all: If global warming is happening more slowly than it was predicted, that's good news, right? Gives us more time to clean up our mess?

 

[TNHarley]

Well, to one and all: If global warming is happening more slowly than it was predicted, that's good news, right? Gives us more time to clean up our mess?

Nope. I was hoping for ocean front property and warmer winters. Leaving my swimming pool open all year would be the Awesome

 

[usmbguest5318]

If one takes a moment to read the study and its supplement, one finds that what has been stated/found is that the models used over a decade ago overstated the rate of warming to the extent that the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above mid-to-late 19th century temperatures is achievable and it appears the world has about twenty more years than earlier models forecasted to achieve the objective.

What does the study not say?

• It does not refute that the Earth is warming.
• It does not refute the impacts of the warming.
• It does not refute the anthropogenic etiology of the warming.

It says it appears we have about twenty more years to "get our act together." In the scheme of planetary events, that's not a lot of time, and as any 60 year-old will attest, its also not a lot of time in scale of human events. That's important because with global warming, the point of no return is exactly that, unless it happens that we have mastered "really quick" planetary-scale terraforming by the time that point is reached.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Its the politics

What is political about whether the planet is warming and what be the consequences of it doing so? To my mind there is nothing political about that. It is something that simply is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If one takes a moment to read the study and its supplement, one finds that what has been stated/found is that the models used over a decade ago overstated the rate of warming to the extent that the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above mid-to-late 19th century temperatures is achievable and it appears the world has about twenty more years than earlier models forecasted to achieve the objective.

What does the study not say?

• It does not refute that the Earth is warming.
• It does not refute the impacts of the warming.
• It does not refute the anthropogenic etiology of the warming.

It says it appears we have about twenty more years to "get our act together." In the scheme of planetary events, that's not a lot of time, and as any 60 year-old will attest, its also not a lot of time in scale of human events. That's important because with global warming, the point of no return is exactly that, unless it happens that we have mastered "really quick" planetary-scale terraforming by the time that point is reached.

They admit their modeling is woefully inadequate and the understanding of the system does not exist. Nothing they put forth is credible now. Until a model can show 20 years of predictive phase that is congruent to observations all they have is SWAG.. "scientific WILD ASS GUESS" I would just call it a wild ass guess as science is really not involved.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Criticizing scientists for correcting their hypotheses as more data comes in is pretty stupid.

Al Gore to Congress: "The science is settled."
Al Gore to the UN: "First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the that climate is warming at a more rapid rate..."

Well, your first mistake is taking a politician's word for it. He's not a scientist.

He was given the Nobel Prize for it, which includes a million dollar check. And every leftist quotes him even today.

 

[flacaltenn]

If one takes a moment to read the study and its supplement, one finds that what has been stated/found is that the models used over a decade ago overstated the rate of warming to the extent that the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above mid-to-late 19th century temperatures is achievable and it appears the world has about twenty more years than earlier models forecasted to achieve the objective.

What does the study not say?

• It does not refute that the Earth is warming.
• It does not refute the impacts of the warming.
• It does not refute the anthropogenic etiology of the warming.

It says it appears we have about twenty more years to "get our act together." In the scheme of planetary events, that's not a lot of time, and as any 60 year-old will attest, its also not a lot of time in scale of human events. That's important because with global warming, the point of no return is exactly that, unless it happens that we have mastered "really quick" planetary-scale terraforming by the time that point is reached.

It's much more nuanced than that. The original projections back in the 1980s were apocalyptic. Largely because Climate Science was a "pretty new thing" having been given all that fancy instrumentation and satellite capability that they NEVER had before. And whenever you give a science a lot of new tools, they tend to abuse them at first. (another story for another thread)

So -- right off the bat, these folks were cast into fame and fortune as the money and press attention multiplied and they EXPOUNDED on all things that COULD happen. They conjured up stuff BEYOND the basic Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere and the GHouse effect.

They told tales of Runaway Accelerations, Irreversible Trigger Points, and Net Positive Feedbacks. Scared the living SHIT out of the whole world. Built all these trippy "maybes" into most of their modeling for the next 40 years.

Well -- where I've been on this for 30 years is still the same. CO2 has LIMITED POWER to increase the surface temp at equilibrium. Pretty much confined to the basics of GHouse science without the elaborate Media attracting "trippy dreams". And 40 years LATER -- all those "expanded powers of CO2" have not manifested. Have not materialized, Have not been measured.

Why this new declaration is amazing is -- it SHOULD have been declared about 10 years ago. But it was embarrassing to comment on the failure of what skeptics call "CATASTROPHIC Global Warming" theories. THAT turkey is in the oven and almost done. THAT'S the significance of this "revelation"..

 

[usmbguest5318]

If one takes a moment to read the study and its supplement, one finds that what has been stated/found is that the models used over a decade ago overstated the rate of warming to the extent that the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above mid-to-late 19th century temperatures is achievable and it appears the world has about twenty more years than earlier models forecasted to achieve the objective.

What does the study not say?

• It does not refute that the Earth is warming.
• It does not refute the impacts of the warming.
• It does not refute the anthropogenic etiology of the warming.

It says it appears we have about twenty more years to "get our act together." In the scheme of planetary events, that's not a lot of time, and as any 60 year-old will attest, its also not a lot of time in scale of human events. That's important because with global warming, the point of no return is exactly that, unless it happens that we have mastered "really quick" planetary-scale terraforming by the time that point is reached.

It's much more nuanced than that. The original projections back in the 1980s were apocalyptic. Largely because Climate Science was a "pretty new thing" having been given all that fancy instrumentation and satellite capability that they NEVER had before. And whenever you give a science a lot of new tools, they tend to abuse them at first. (another story for another thread)

So -- right off the bat, these folks were cast into fame and fortune as the money and press attention multiplied and they EXPOUNDED on all things that COULD happen. They conjured up stuff BEYOND the basic Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere and the GHouse effect.

They told tales of Runaway Accelerations, Irreversible Trigger Points, and Net Positive Feedbacks. Scared the living SHIT out of the whole world. Built all these trippy "maybes" into most of their modeling for the next 40 years.

Well -- where I've been on this for 30 years is still the same. CO2 has LIMITED POWER to increase the surface temp at equilibrium. Pretty much confined to the basics of GHouse science without the elaborate Media attracting "trippy dreams". And 40 years LATER -- all those "expanded powers of CO2" have not manifested. Have not materialized, Have not been measured.

Why this new declaration is amazing is -- it SHOULD have been declared about 10 years ago. But it was embarrassing to comment on the failure of what skeptics call "CATASTROPHIC Global Warming" theories. THAT turkey is in the oven and almost done. THAT'S the significance of this "revelation"..

The original projections back in the 1980s

???

From the OP-er's linked article:

Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found. The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
​

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change. As noted in the article, the extent of the error in the models and observed temperature increases, with regard to the planetary temperature increase goals of the Paris Accord, makes for "the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

CO2 has LIMITED POWER to increase the surface temp at equilibrium.

Well, yes, there is a limit to the impact CO2 has. Nobody's going argue with that.

• How CO2 warming is driving climate
  
• How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
  
• The correlation between CO2 and temperature
  
• Greenhouse Gases and Temperature
  
• https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

"Surface temp at equilibrium." I'm sure that means something very specific, and I'm sure too that right now, I don't know what that meaning is and/or how it differs from or similar to what climate change/global warming researchers tell us we, as a planet of people, should be concerned about. I can say that it's been my impression all along that the warming that concerned the scientific community was that of the Earth's atmosphere as a whole -- all however many cubic miles of it there are -- not merely "surface temperatures," at "equilibrium" or otherwise.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

National Guard chief: Climate change possibly causing 'bigger, larger, more violent' storms
Source: The Hill

The National Guard's top general said Tuesday that climate change may be causing storms to become “bigger, larger, more violent,” which he said underscores the need to keep service members spread across the country to respond.

“I do think that the climate is changing, and I do think that it is becoming more severe,” Gen. Joseph Lengyel, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters Tuesday morning in response to a question from The Hill. “I do think that storms are becoming bigger, larger, more violent. You know, I never know if this one speck of time is an anomaly or not, but, you know, we've all seen now three Category 5 storms that popped out in a period of a month.”

-snip-

Asked Tuesday how climate change has affected his preparations for natural disasters, Lengyel said recent storms underline the need to have a robust Guard presence in each state.

-snip-

The Pentagon first called climate change a national security threat during the Obama administration. Defense Secretary James Mattis also cited climate change as a national security threat during his confirmation process.

-snip-

Read more: National Guard chief: Climate change possibly causing 'bigger, larger, more violent' storms

 

[SSDD]

It's much more nuanced than that. The original projections back in the 1980s were apocalyptic. Largely because Climate Science was a "pretty new thing" having been given all that fancy instrumentation and satellite capability that they NEVER had before. And whenever you give a science a lot of new tools, they tend to abuse them at first. (another story for another thread)

Climate science is still a pretty new thing..and will be until probably the latter part of this century...till they get a grip on at least a good percentage of the factors that effect the climate and effect each other the idea of them actually understanding the climate to the degree that they can make rational predictions is out of the question.