Jump to content

NY Times: What to Make of a Warming Plateau


Recommended Posts

Bad news libs, the NY Times has now admitted global warming has stopped. Now what do you do?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

 

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

 

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

 

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

But don't worry, the Paper of Record tells you that you should keep your panic levels elevated anyway, because the fact that they were wrong simply means we don't understand how bad the situation is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bad news libs, the NY Times has now admitted global warming has stopped. Now what do you do?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

 

But don't worry, the Paper of Record tells you that you should keep your panic levels elevated anyway, because the fact that they were wrong simply means we don't understand how bad the situation is.

Strange wording in the article. I thought that in science when your observations don't fit your theory, you change the theory.

 

Here, they seem to indicate how odd it is that the observations don't match the theory and urge caution to read too much into it.

 

Who are the "deniers"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news libs, the NY Times has now admitted global warming has stopped. Now what do you do?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

 

But don't worry, the Paper of Record tells you that you should keep your panic levels elevated anyway, because the fact that they were wrong simply means we don't understand how bad the situation is.

 

GW doesn't climb steadily. If you look at a graphic history, GW climbs, then plateaus, then climbs, then plateaus. You can't look at a plateau and say "Look! Look! Global warming has stopped! Take that, libs!" Of course, unless you don't know that's what it does, or you do and decide to lie about it. And this sure shouldn't be political. Too bad it's become that way -- a struggle between those who would like to leave a planet for our children to live on that won't destroy world economies on one side, and those who look only at how much money they can make, by cutting employee hours, pay, skirting environmental laws, not updating their facilities that dump thousands of metric tons of particulate pollution into the air every year (but boy! don't those dividends look good!).

 

Look below for some science fact on this subject.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117101/New-temperature-record-adds-500-new-weather-stations--confirms-world-HAS-warmed-0-75C-1900.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're gonna regroup and repackage their man made global warming scam to encompass anything that contradicts the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

Any deviation from the mean temperature up or down is indication of man's evil behavior destroying the planet. Doncha know.

 

 

GW doesn't climb steadily. If you look at a graphic history, GW climbs, then plateaus, then climbs, then plateaus. You can't look at a plateau and say "Look! Look! Global warming has stopped! Take that, libs!" Of course, unless you don't know that's what it does, or you do and decide to lie about it. And this sure shouldn't be political. Too bad it's become that way -- a struggle between those who would like to leave a planet for our children to live on that won't destroy world economies on one side, and those who look only at how much money they can make, by cutting employee hours, pay, skirting environmental laws, not updating their facilities that dump thousands of metric tons of particulate pollution into the air every year (but boy! don't those dividends look good!).

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Denier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange wording in the article. I thought that in science when your observations don't fit your theory, you change the theory.

Here, they seem to indicate how odd it is that the observations don't match the theory and urge caution to read too much into it.

Who are the "deniers"?

Kind of ironic, isn't it?

 

I particularly enjoyed the part where they tried to say that 1998 was a poor year to pick as the start of the plateau because it was the high point at that time. Well, DUH. You start with current temps and work backward to see how long ago the warming stopped, and magically you find 1998.

 

But don't worry, all that global warming is being magically contained so that it can be suddenly released to create havoc and mayhem all over the world! Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of ironic, isn't it?

 

I particularly enjoyed the part where they tried to say that 1998 was a poor year to pick as the start of the plateau because it was the high point at that time. Well, DUH. You start with current temps and work backward to see how long ago the warming stopped, and magically you find 1998.

 

But don't worry, all that global warming is being magically contained so that it can be suddenly released to create havoc and mayhem all over the world! Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

 

You can think as you please, but it's not going to change what's happening out there.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-plateau-linked-air-pollution-190136786.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GW doesn't climb steadily. If you look at a graphic history, GW climbs, then plateaus, then climbs, then plateaus. You can't look at a plateau and say "Look! Look! Global warming has stopped!

 

So we should ignore the science? Because if it has reached a plateau, by definition it has stopped for that period.

 

Duh. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

GW doesn't climb steadily. If you look at a graphic history, GW climbs, then plateaus, then climbs, then plateaus. You can't look at a plateau and say "Look! Look! Global warming has stopped! Take that, libs!" Of course, unless you don't know that's what it does, or you do and decide to lie about it. And this sure shouldn't be political. Too bad it's become that way -- a struggle between those who would like to leave a planet for our children to live on that won't destroy world economies on one side, and those who look only at how much money they can make, by cutting employee hours, pay, skirting environmental laws, not updating their facilities that dump thousands of metric tons of particulate pollution into the air every year (but boy! don't those dividends look good!).

 

Look below for some science fact on this subject.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117101/New-temperature-record-adds-500-new-weather-stations--confirms-world-HAS-warmed-0-75C-1900.html

Yes, we know Lisa. You used to claim there wasn't a plateau, now you're explaining the one we are currently seeing.

I have no doubt that unexplained magic is behind the plateau we are currently experiencing, just as the NY Times reports.

 

 

 

 

You can think as you please, but it's not going to change what's happening out there.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-plateau-linked-air-pollution-190136786.html

So, obviously we need more pollution, and Obama's attempt to kill the coal industry is leading to global warming.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm--not the first forum conservative to happen upon this NY Times article in the course of casual reading.

 

You know he wasn't reading the NYT. He's not that educated.

It would be interesting for cons to be honest and tell us what piece of crapola they really do get their stories from.

Conservatives honest? Would never happen in a million years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know he wasn't reading the NYT. He's not that educated.

It would be interesting for cons to be honest and tell us what piece of crapola they really do get their stories from.

Conservatives honest? Would never happen in a million years.

 

What's the definition of "educated" to a liberal?

 

Filled with endless liberal Disinformation and bulls***.

 

Like denying the Reagan Boom 30 years after it happened and a couple decades after it was written factually into history books. :D

 

There's no hope for hopelessly clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the NY Times piece:

 

“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge of the climate system,” said Roger Pielke, Sr., Senior Research Scientist at CIRES at the University of Colorado at Boulder.


So libs, can you at least concede that the TRUTH is still up for DEBATE? Like the NY Times does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You know he wasn't reading the NYT. He's not that educated.

It would be interesting for cons to be honest and tell us what piece of crapola they really do get their stories from.

Conservatives honest? Would never happen in a million years.

ES is in a particular pickle with this one. On one hand, the NY Times is never wrong, but on the other, he's a died in the wool Goebbel Warmer.

How can he possibly reconcile is biased views when they conflict?

 

He can't, so instead, he attacks conservatives.

You. Can't. Make. Up. Stupid. Like. That.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

So, obviously we need more pollution,

 

Thanks for succinctly summing up the conservative ideology on environmentalism.

 

from Dopey's NYT's link:

 

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently.

 

Try reading your sources a little better so you don't continue to embarrass yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, based strictly on what I have read and seen here by global warming global climate change supporters, that if you BELIEVE in global warming global climate change, you are DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT PERSONALLY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for succinctly summing up the conservative ideology on environmentalism.

 

from Dopey's NYT's link:

 

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently.

 

Try reading your sources a little better so you don't continue to embarrass yourself.

 

 

Good Lord that boy is simple-minded.

 

qxufrt.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for succinctly summing up the conservative ideology on environmentalism.

from Dopey's NYT's link:

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently.

Try reading your sources a little better so you don't continue to embarrass yourself.

So what? The Times is trying to provide you a little cover, but you're not intelligent enough to use it.

 

 

 

Good Lord that boy is simple-minded.

 

qxufrt.jpg

 

I love watching Draino project is failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Democrat genius Al Gore, hallowed be his name, says it's true, it must be true. Gobal warming exists. Al would know. He doesn't need no stinkin' credentials, just investments in politically sponsored, earth guilt boondoggles. Can't hold him to the standards he espouses because he's special. Global warming should be declared a religion, since it takes a leap in faith, not logic or facts to support it's existence. Pope Al? Sounds right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...