Cooling to be Only Temporary in a Warming World, According to New Climate Model
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:42:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Cooling to be Only Temporary in a Warming World, According to New Climate Model
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Cooling to be Only Temporary in a Warming World, According to New Climate Model  (Read 1687 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 30, 2008, 08:50:11 PM »

Nothing we didn't already know before:

In a New Climate Model, Short-Term Cooling in a Warmer World

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: May 1, 2008


After decades of research that sought, and found, evidence of a human influence on the earth’s climate, climatologists are beginning to shift to a new and similarly daunting enterprise: creating decade-long forecasts for climate, just as meteorologists routinely generate week-long forecasts for weather.

One of the first attempts to look ahead a decade, using computer simulations and measurements of ocean temperatures, predicts a slight cooling of Europe and North America, probably related to shifting currents and patterns in the oceans.

The team that generated the forecast, whose members come from two German ocean and climate research centers, acknowledged that it was a preliminary effort. But in a short paper published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature, they said their modeling method was able to reasonably replicate climate patterns in those regions in recent decades, providing some confidence in their prediction for the next one.

The authors stressed that the pause in warming represented only a temporary blunting of the centuries of rising temperatures that scientists have projected if carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases continue accumulating in the atmosphere.

“We’re learning that internal climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change,” said the paper’s lead author, Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany. “In the end this gives more confidence in the long-term projections.”

The new study focused on relationships between short-term climate trends and a system of currents in the Atlantic Ocean, called the meridional overturning circulation, that undergo periodic changes. The predictions were made by repeatedly running a simulation of the global climate and adjusting conditions in the simulated oceans to match temperature measurements.

To get a computer-generated simulation of the climate for the 1990s, for example, the model ran from the 1950s through the 1980s, with sea temperatures adjusted to reflect the real world, then ran without further inputs for 10 more years.

The model is a rough replica of conditions, the scientists said. While it reliably reproduced climate patterns in Europe and North America, the model could not replicate patterns over central Africa, for example.

In e-mail exchanges, several climate experts not associated with the study expressed a variety of views on the new cooling forecast. But they agreed that the work served the important function of at least trying to chart what will assuredly be a winding climatic journey toward a generally warmer world.

Other researchers, including NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., reported separately on April 21 that a slowly fluctuating oscillation in Pacific Ocean temperatures had shifted into its cool phase, a condition that is also thought to exert an overall temporary cooling of the climate.

These natural variations can also amplify warming, and that is likely to happen in future decades on and off as well, experts say.

The global climate will continue to be influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability and the building greenhouse effect, said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. He said efforts to build forecasts by mixing modeling and measurements were vital in a world with rising populations in places where poverty leads to vulnerability from climate-related threats like flooding and famine.

It should also help the public and policy makers understand that a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of human-driven warming is flawed, Dr. Trenberth said.

“Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year,” Dr. Trenberth said. “It does not happen that way.”
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2008, 10:29:41 PM »

This is nothing new.

The same oscillations that amplified the actual rate of warming during the 1980s and '90s have reversed and are now counteracting and could possibly even reverse the warming.  The same thing happened from 1945-1975.



Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2008, 11:31:29 PM »

I've become convince that scientists really don't have enough data to accurately assess man's influence on the global climate.  Our planet has experienced several major climate shifts over its lifetime which are caused by an almost infinite number of variables that all intertwine and affect each other.  There is simply no way for us to be able to discern what affect man is having on the global climate because we are just one of those variables.

I am note refuting the fact that the global climate is changing but for scientists to continue claiming that man is the major contributing factor to this change is not something I'm willing to buy into.  Environmentalists should focus more on the negative affects pollution has on people in the short term and at the local level.  Talking about global warming makes you look as ridiculous as The Day After Tomorrow.  Talking about how the local coal plant or car emissions are causing an increase in major health problems gets people's attention and makes them more likely to side with you.
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,948
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2008, 05:41:42 AM »

I've become convince that scientists really don't have enough data to accurately assess man's influence on the global climate.  Our planet has experienced several major climate shifts over its lifetime which are caused by an almost infinite number of variables that all intertwine and affect each other.  There is simply no way for us to be able to discern what affect man is having on the global climate because we are just one of those variables.

I am note refuting the fact that the global climate is changing but for scientists to continue claiming that man is the major contributing factor to this change is not something I'm willing to buy into.  Environmentalists should focus more on the negative affects pollution has on people in the short term and at the local level.  Talking about global warming makes you look as ridiculous as The Day After Tomorrow.  Talking about how the local coal plant or car emissions are causing an increase in major health problems gets people's attention and makes them more likely to side with you.
These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2008, 07:41:04 AM »

These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Considering that last part is incorrect, your chastising of Padfoot looks ridiculous.  Smiley
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,948
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2008, 08:15:10 AM »

These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Considering that last part is incorrect, your chastising of Padfoot looks ridiculous.  Smiley
You need to read the whole sentence.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2008, 08:22:29 AM »

These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Considering that last part is incorrect, your chastising of Padfoot looks ridiculous.  Smiley
You need to read the whole sentence.

I did, which is why I replied the way I did.  With the scientific community being split on the subject, it is not becoming universally accepted.  Since they are still trying to figure out the variables involved and reexamining their historical calculations and estimates, they are far from coming to one conclusion or another.  It's a whole new field, and they are doing their best to study and understand it.
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,948
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2008, 08:26:12 AM »

These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Considering that last part is incorrect, your chastising of Padfoot looks ridiculous.  Smiley
You need to read the whole sentence.

I did, which is why I replied the way I did.  With the scientific community being split on the subject, it is not becoming universally accepted.  Since they are still trying to figure out the variables involved and reexamining their historical calculations and estimates, they are far from coming to one conclusion or another.  It's a whole new field, and they are doing their best to study and understand it.
Yes, but the consensus is moving in this direction.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2008, 08:33:33 AM »

I've become convince that scientists really don't have enough data to accurately assess man's influence on the global climate.  Our planet has experienced several major climate shifts over its lifetime which are caused by an almost infinite number of variables that all intertwine and affect each other.  There is simply no way for us to be able to discern what affect man is having on the global climate because we are just one of those variables.

I am note refuting the fact that the global climate is changing but for scientists to continue claiming that man is the major contributing factor to this change is not something I'm willing to buy into.  Environmentalists should focus more on the negative affects pollution has on people in the short term and at the local level.  Talking about global warming makes you look as ridiculous as The Day After Tomorrow.  Talking about how the local coal plant or car emissions are causing an increase in major health problems gets people's attention and makes them more likely to side with you.

^^^^^^^.

Though I will point out to MODU that the scientific community is far from split on this subject - more like 85-15, though there is alot of divergence within that 85.

All this goes to prove is that this issue has nothing to do with science in any real sense and everything to do with politics and ideology. Proof of this (if any more is needed) will emerge once Statesrights' posts.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2008, 08:41:20 AM »

All this goes to prove is that this issue has nothing to do with science in any real sense and everything to do with politics and ideology. Proof of this (if any more is needed) will emerge once Statesrights' posts.

HAHAHA
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2008, 10:28:34 AM »

Yup climate change is not our biggest threat in the next 20 years, peak oil is. But by investing more in green technologies we will not only solve the oil crisis, but get a headstart on climate change. Now you guys that heard the explanation of the oscillation and decided that climate change was not human caused, do you guys understand what will happen 20 years from now when the oscillation comes the other way. Our planet will probably warm to an extent we cannot predict because it will be caused by multiple factors. And if in those warm summers, all the ice melts, we are in big trouble. Better to be safe than sorry yeah?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2008, 10:39:53 AM »

OK, the NCDC can't even get the year acurately predicted.  Who thinks that they'll be able to predict 10 years?
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,948
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2008, 10:49:10 AM »

OK, the NCDC can't even get the year acurately predicted.  Who thinks that they'll be able to predict 10 years?
It's generally easier to predict the average over a long period, than predict a single year.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2008, 11:15:42 AM »

I've become convince that scientists really don't have enough data to accurately assess man's influence on the global climate.  Our planet has experienced several major climate shifts over its lifetime which are caused by an almost infinite number of variables that all intertwine and affect each other.  There is simply no way for us to be able to discern what affect man is having on the global climate because we are just one of those variables.

I am note refuting the fact that the global climate is changing but for scientists to continue claiming that man is the major contributing factor to this change is not something I'm willing to buy into.  Environmentalists should focus more on the negative affects pollution has on people in the short term and at the local level.  Talking about global warming makes you look as ridiculous as The Day After Tomorrow.  Talking about how the local coal plant or car emissions are causing an increase in major health problems gets people's attention and makes them more likely to side with you.
These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Wasn't the cool down that killed the dinosaurs pretty quick?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2008, 11:28:34 AM »

I've become convince that scientists really don't have enough data to accurately assess man's influence on the global climate.  Our planet has experienced several major climate shifts over its lifetime which are caused by an almost infinite number of variables that all intertwine and affect each other.  There is simply no way for us to be able to discern what affect man is having on the global climate because we are just one of those variables.

I am note refuting the fact that the global climate is changing but for scientists to continue claiming that man is the major contributing factor to this change is not something I'm willing to buy into.  Environmentalists should focus more on the negative affects pollution has on people in the short term and at the local level.  Talking about global warming makes you look as ridiculous as The Day After Tomorrow.  Talking about how the local coal plant or car emissions are causing an increase in major health problems gets people's attention and makes them more likely to side with you.
These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Wasn't the cool down that killed the dinosaurs pretty quick?

Umm do believe that was caused by a meteor which cut out sunlight for a significant amount of time. Ice fields probably grew at the poles and earth has its own feedback loops which make it colder than you would think it would be. Such as more Ice means more sunlight reflected back and so forth. And the thing is that there are ways the earth can warm up on its own, say if lots of volcanoes and forest fires belch carbon into the environment. That has happened in the past and no doubt those processes occur in the present but they cannot account for the rapid temperature increase we saw these last 20 years. It will be interesting to see if the earth actually cools down in the next few years. I doubt it.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2008, 06:31:55 PM »

MODU, to claim that there is this "divide" among scientists implies that it is split 50/50.  It's not.  The vast majority (a larger margin than any presidential candidate in our history) are part of the consensus, which states that our activities are causing the planet to warm... not climate change... GLOBAL WARMING.


The debate lies not in whether or not we are responsible, but for how much we are responsible, and whether the forecast models, which are horribly incomplete, are actually correct in their predictions.  Many scientists are skeptical of this, citing too many natural variables that we don't know about that could very well counteract our actions.  What we *do* know, however, is that given somewhat similar natural variables to the last century, the planet will warm by several degrees Fahrenheit. 

Those that are full on skeptics and denying human causes to global warming are generally non-climatologists working in physics or engineering or meteorology.  They are good at explaining how tornadoes form or why the wind blows, but they often miss the forest for the trees:  They don't have the resources or the expertise to put it all together. The climatologists are the ones that seek to understand how CO2 interacts not only with energy, but with the many variables in our climate system... something an engineer is sorely lacking.

Also, the very reactionary way that people look at climate change totally clouds the debate.  The global climate is never stagnant.  It is always changing.

When the climate warms abruptly and dramatically and then cools slightly and then warms even faster than before to a new high before a forecasted slight cooling, it's still a dangerous warming trend.

When you run a retail business and business drops off in January after Christmas, you don't freak out... because it is expected.  There are variables, such as religious holidays, that drive sales... but now if you look at this January and your sales are down 25% compared to last January.. then you can start to worry... but if sales are down 25% this year and then next year they're up 1%, you don't freak out saying "OMG BUSINESS BOOM!!!!!" You say "there's a general trend downward, but it's occurring in staggered steps"...  That's the difference between being foolishly hopeful and being realistic.

Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2008, 07:04:30 PM »

OK, the NCDC can't even get the year acurately predicted.  Who thinks that they'll be able to predict 10 years?
It's generally easier to predict the average over a long period, than predict a single year.

My point is, they suck.  I'm actually quite disappointed in the way the National Weather Service has been performing recently.  The Storm Prediction Center is getting worse and worse at issuing watches, and they're too concerned with new technology that lets them issue warnings for a specifc part of the county.  Well, that's all good and dandy, but if people aren't anticipating severe wx, then coming out and issuing a warning, even if it's specific down to the mile isnt going to do you any good.

Sorry for the rant.  Tongue
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2008, 08:01:23 PM »

OK, the NCDC can't even get the year acurately predicted.  Who thinks that they'll be able to predict 10 years?
It's generally easier to predict the average over a long period, than predict a single year.

My point is, they suck.  I'm actually quite disappointed in the way the National Weather Service has been performing recently.  The Storm Prediction Center is getting worse and worse at issuing watches, and they're too concerned with new technology that lets them issue warnings for a specifc part of the county.  Well, that's all good and dandy, but if people aren't anticipating severe wx, then coming out and issuing a warning, even if it's specific down to the mile isnt going to do you any good.

Sorry for the rant.  Tongue

I have to agree here:  They have taken the human element out of forecasting, which does tend to make forecasts more reliable, simply because we can understand how weather affects a particular area, unlike the computer.

It is no longer "This is very similar to the spring blizzard of '56, folks... i think temperatures will drop enough and we could see some impressive snow accumulations"

Now, it's "The models are predicting a chance for rain and snow on Thursday with a high of 39 degrees."




Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2008, 08:39:33 PM »

MODU, to claim that there is this "divide" among scientists implies that it is split 50/50.  It's not.  The vast majority (a larger margin than any presidential candidate in our history) are part of the consensus, which states that our activities are causing the planet to warm... not climate change... GLOBAL WARMING.

No, a divide just means that there is a significant proportion that disagrees with the other.  Doesn't mean it's 50/50.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2008, 09:17:09 PM »

MODU, to claim that there is this "divide" among scientists implies that it is split 50/50.  It's not.  The vast majority (a larger margin than any presidential candidate in our history) are part of the consensus, which states that our activities are causing the planet to warm... not climate change... GLOBAL WARMING.

No, a divide just means that there is a significant proportion that disagrees with the other.  Doesn't mean it's 50/50.

What would you define as a significant proportion?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2008, 10:14:21 PM »

MODU, to claim that there is this "divide" among scientists implies that it is split 50/50.  It's not.  The vast majority (a larger margin than any presidential candidate in our history) are part of the consensus, which states that our activities are causing the planet to warm... not climate change... GLOBAL WARMING.

No, a divide just means that there is a significant proportion that disagrees with the other.  Doesn't mean it's 50/50.

What would you define as a significant proportion?

I would say a minimum of 20% in any case.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2008, 10:41:37 PM »

Yeah i seriously doubt 20% of CLIMATOLOGISTS do not think humans contribute to global warming.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.