Cause of Global Warming's "Pause" Since 1998 Revealed

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
Cause of Global Warming's "Pause" Since 1998 Revealed



Researchers have attributed the "pause" we've observed in global warming since 1998 to natural climate fluctuations.

While global temperature has continued to rise, as of 1998, the rate at which it is rising has been slowing, despite a continued rise in the levels of greenhouses gases. This apparent "pause" in global warming has been a matter of debate, but new research led by physics professor Shaun Lovejoy of Canada's McGill University may put this debate to rest.

In a recent paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060478/abstract], Lovejoy presents the findings of his statistical analysis of the 15-year period after 1998 during which global temperature had been projected by scientists to be higher than actually observed. His conclusion? A natural cooling fluctuation in line with what has historically been observed masked the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

"We find many examples of these variations in pre-industrial temperature reconstructions" based on proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediment, Lovejoy says. "Being based on climate records, this approach avoids any biases that might affect the sophisticated computer models that are commonly used for understanding global warming."

Further, the 1998-2013 cooling effect "exactly follows a slightly larger pre-pause warming event, from 1992 to 1998," so that the natural cooling during the "pause" is no more than a return to the longer term natural variability, Lovejoy concludes. "The pause thus has a convincing statistical explanation."

Before anyone claims that this lends proof that global warming itself is nothing more than the result of natural fluctuations in climate, Lovejoy's previous paper, which employed the same statistical methodology, "rejected [this hypothesis] with 99.9% confidence."

Of course, science is all about pursuing knowledge in a manner that holds up to rigor, so the best way to contest an idea is to attempt to scientifically disprove it. But until someone can prove otherwise, it seems the ultimate fate of our planet is death by heat. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/scienceandtech/columns/forscience/11565-Scorched-or-Frozen-What-is-the-Earths-Ultimate-Fate]

Source: McGill University [https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/global-warming-pause-reflects-natural-fluctuation-237538]

Permalink
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
Lets hope this "pause" lasts just a little while longer. I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when the effects of the melting icecaps and the grimy surface of what remains really set in. The whole purpose of the icecaps is to reflect a good percentage of the sun's light back out. One thing that scientific models don't account for isn't that they're melting - it's that they're no longer reflective due to air currents carrying our pollution north and depositing it on the ice, making it more black and gray than white.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Before anyone claims that this lends proof that global warming itself is nothing more than the result of natural fluctuations in climate, Lovejoy's previous paper, which employed the same statistical methodology, "rejected [this hypothesis] with 99.9% confidence."
So you're saying there's a chance?
 

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
Remus said:
Lets hope this "pause" lasts just a little while longer. I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when the effects of the melting icecaps and the grimy surface of what remains really set in. The whole purpose of the icecaps is to reflect a good percentage of the sun's light back out. One thing that scientific models don't account for isn't that they're melting - it's that they're no longer reflective due to air currents carrying our pollution north and depositing it on the ice, making it more black and gray than white.
Funny you mention that -- I briefly talk about that in this week's upcoming Sci & Tech podcast. The decrease in the world's albedo (or reflectivity) can lead to a snowball effect.


hentropy said:
Before anyone claims that this lends proof that global warming itself is nothing more than the result of natural fluctuations in climate, Lovejoy's previous paper, which employed the same statistical methodology, "rejected [this hypothesis] with 99.9% confidence."
So you're saying there's a chance?
Hahah, oh, you.
 

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
Remus said:
Lets hope this "pause" lasts just a little while longer. I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when the effects of the melting icecaps and the grimy surface of what remains really set in. The whole purpose of the icecaps is to reflect a good percentage of the sun's light back out. One thing that scientific models don't account for isn't that they're melting - it's that they're no longer reflective due to air currents carrying our pollution north and depositing it on the ice, making it more black and gray than white.
So what? You're saying that there's a net negative of sunlight being reflected? No, Particle pollution can help slow down global warming although has drastic consequences on weather which we see today.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
I don't think anything about climate should ever refer to 1998. It was one unusually hot year. Anybody trying to claim anything about "since 1998" is probably using a single outlier to try to lie to you.
 

Crackerjacks

New member
May 19, 2014
13
0
0
Pyrian said:
I don't think anything about climate should ever refer to 1998. It was one unusually hot year. Anybody trying to claim anything about "since 1998" is probably using a single outlier to try to lie to you.
Weather is different from climate.
 

zalithar

New member
Apr 22, 2013
69
0
0
Crackerjacks said:
Pyrian said:
I don't think anything about climate should ever refer to 1998. It was one unusually hot year. Anybody trying to claim anything about "since 1998" is probably using a single outlier to try to lie to you.
Weather is different from climate.
Kind of his point; a lot of "news" organizations, like Fox, conflate weather and climate to try to sell you a bunch of bullshit. kind of like comparing: an unexpectedly warm year/ the general warm trend, with an unexpectedly cold year.
e.g. disproving global warming with the polar vortex.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Rhykker said:
so the best way to contest an idea is to attempt to scientifically disprove it.
Er...not quite. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If someone says, "<insert person/place/thing here> is real!", it's not up to us to prove that they're wrong. The onus is on them to prove that their claim is true.
 

Boris Goodenough

New member
Jul 15, 2009
1,428
0
0
The suns reduced solar activity is one of the reasons. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
I've often wondered if as the planet heats up, liquid water evaporates into water vapor more easily and results in more clouds and rain. So I wonder if we'd become a rain planet before we'd become a desert wasteland since the water vapor certainly can't escape our atmosphere. I mean, the threat of being a rain planet isn't all that different from becoming a desert planet to be honest. I just don't know if the whole system will play out in response to this the same way any one scientist dedicated to any one field thinks it will.
 

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
Sooooo.... anyone that thinks that its something thats natural, he rejects it with 99.9% confidence. I cannot stop laughing at this.... please tell me this was meant as a joke? Really, he rejects it, so that means... we are supposed to buy it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


His 99.9% confidence doesnt add up to diddly squat for me, and yes, I DO believe its natural. Unless, that is, you WANT to go do the lemming walk off a cliff and subscribe to the whole green scam. Your choice, I suppose. Toooo funny.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Riff Moonraker said:
His 99.9% confidence doesnt add up to diddly squat for me, and yes, I DO believe its natural. Unless, that is, you WANT to go do the lemming walk off a cliff and subscribe to the whole green scam. Your choice, I suppose. Toooo funny.
Pascal's wager has you on the wrong side of the equation. If they're wrong, we get renewable power sources with less pollution. If they're right then we're screwed in a few generations. Not that pascal's wager is all powerful or right. It's just a way to think of it.
 

attackshark

New member
Nov 16, 2010
248
0
0
Riff Moonraker said:
Sooooo.... anyone that thinks that its something thats natural, he rejects it with 99.9% confidence. I cannot stop laughing at this.... please tell me this was meant as a joke? Really, he rejects it, so that means... we are supposed to buy it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
sometimes you just need to laugh. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H47ow4_Cmk0]
 

Qizx

Executor
Feb 21, 2011
458
0
0
Riff Moonraker said:
Sooooo.... anyone that thinks that its something thats natural, he rejects it with 99.9% confidence. I cannot stop laughing at this.... please tell me this was meant as a joke? Really, he rejects it, so that means... we are supposed to buy it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


His 99.9% confidence doesnt add up to diddly squat for me, and yes, I DO believe its natural. Unless, that is, you WANT to go do the lemming walk off a cliff and subscribe to the whole green scam. Your choice, I suppose. Toooo funny.
Fun fact: Lemmings didn't walk off those cliffs, disney shoved/drove them off the cliffs. So sorry if I don't exactly take your other statement of global warming being a "natural occurrence" as fact. Unless I totally misunderstood what you said, I'm tired and need to get off work.
 

bdcjacko

Gone Fonzy
Jun 9, 2010
2,371
0
0
Wrong. Everyone know science is just a bunch of nerds sitting around drinking things out of test tubes claiming things about the environment and how industry is ruining the world or whatever. The real reason there is a supposed pause is because voodoo witch doctors put a curse on the planet to freeze it. But the curse is no match for the ancient Egyptian curse that will cause the world to ignite by the year 3066 CE.
 

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
If the cooling gets any stronger then the theory of global cooling might prop up again
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Or, and this is just a wild assed conjecture on my part, who certainly knows far far less than all of the brilliant scientists competing for federal research welfare, the truth is the same one we have known all along. That man has far far less impact on the climate than basic regular cyclical fluctuations of the Sun. So much less that mans actual impact on climate is below the effective level of perception.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
SourMilk said:
Remus said:
Lets hope this "pause" lasts just a little while longer. I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when the effects of the melting icecaps and the grimy surface of what remains really set in. The whole purpose of the icecaps is to reflect a good percentage of the sun's light back out. One thing that scientific models don't account for isn't that they're melting - it's that they're no longer reflective due to air currents carrying our pollution north and depositing it on the ice, making it more black and gray than white.
So what? You're saying that there's a net negative of sunlight being reflected? No, Particle pollution can help slow down global warming although has drastic consequences on weather which we see today.
As a skeptic myself this is sound. Some countries like china don't have effective controls to prevent the release of stuff like particulate soot and it settling on a formerly pristine white section of reflective snow leads to that area being darker in colour which then leads to a net increase in solar energy absorbed in that area. It's very simple physics.

Vigormortis said:
Rhykker said:
so the best way to contest an idea is to attempt to scientifically disprove it.
Er...not quite. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If someone says, "<insert person/place/thing here> is real!", it's not up to us to prove that they're wrong. The onus is on them to prove that their claim is true.
A good example is this; "God exists" Can you prove it? Nope. Can you disprove it? Not really. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that god exists.

Lightknight said:
Riff Moonraker said:
His 99.9% confidence doesnt add up to diddly squat for me, and yes, I DO believe its natural. Unless, that is, you WANT to go do the lemming walk off a cliff and subscribe to the whole green scam. Your choice, I suppose. Toooo funny.
Pascal's wager has you on the wrong side of the equation. If they're wrong, we get renewable power sources with less pollution. If they're right then we're screwed in a few generations. Not that pascal's wager is all powerful or right. It's just a way to think of it.
Pascal's wager is a logical falacy. And no, current renewable tech is nowhere near efficient enough in fact the only power source we have that we can rely on for this kind of venture is nuclear power. Unless we can somehow reduce our use which with the way our economies are structured will involve a large recession and the loss of many jobs even if in the long term it's a temporary thing.

We need to focus on new power sources any way for the sake of energy security, efficiency and such and those are way more marketable to people than climate change is. So if anything we need to focus on increased efficiency in our systems and energy security through things like solar farms.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
All I know is that in China they have started bottling air in the countryside, bringing it into the polluted cities, and selling it as "fresh air"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100200587/man-sells-canned-fresh-air-in-china-welcome-to-yuppie-capitalism-comrades/

You may be tempted to dismiss this as a desperate but ultimately localised problem, but then understand that China's pollution is so great the smog has been recorded crossing the entire Pacific Ocean and arriving in California, in fact A Quarter of the current air pollution in the Western United States originates in China
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100200587/man-sells-canned-fresh-air-in-china-welcome-to-yuppie-capitalism-comrades/

Man made pollution is getting out of control, and unless we actually make steps to pro-actively combat it, we will see a lot more "fresh air" sellers in a lot more countries, until buying a supply of air while we are outside is seen as normal as buying bottled water (remember when the idea of paying for water was absolutely ludicrous?)