
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown - stfu
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
======
snowwrestler
This article is ridiculous, leading with quotes from Bjorn Lomborg and Richard
Tol, neither of whom are scientists or conduct climate research.

It even undercuts its own headline, but waits until nearly the end to do so:

"The IPCC has consistently said that fluctuations in the weather, perhaps
caused by variations in sunspots or a La Nina cooling of the Pacific, can mask
any warming trend and the panel has never predicted a year-by-year rise in
temperatures."

------
zeteo
Carbon dioxide, by itself, is a rather weak greenhouse gas. Most if not all of
the models discussed here (note that there is no scientific consensus on a
single model) involve a runaway process in which the rise of CO₂ triggers a
precipitous rise in _other_ warming agents. It is this part that has failed to
pass (so far).

So the debate returns to its basis, which is precaution. Alas, regarding this
science can tell us nothing about its optimal level. Are we willing to bet
that the rise in CO₂ will continue to not trigger a runaway process? For
developed nations, limiting CO₂ emissions bears only moderate economic harm,
and many are not willing to take the bet. For upstart giants like China and
India, tough emission limits involve a halt in development, delaying by
decades (if not centuries) the time at which they may catch up with Western
standards of living.

~~~
od2m
Are we willing to bet that the rise in CO₂ will continue to not trigger a
runaway process?

The problem with that argument is you can make it for anything that's not well
understood.

------
SagelyGuru
According to this chart:

[http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth...](http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth_Science/Global_Climate_Change_and_Energy/Related_Articles/global_temp2.jpg)

We are due for another 100K years of dropping temperatures.

------
ry0ohki
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn
Lomborg

This is the understatement of the year. The Earth is an extremely complicated
system.

~~~
snowwrestler
It's a silly strawman comment from an author who has made a career out of
making himself controversial.

------
shakesbeard
And yesterday:

> The summer ice melt in parts of Antarctica is at its highest level in 1,000
> years, Australian and British researchers reported on Monday, adding new
> evidence of the impact of global warming on sensitive Antarctic glaciers and
> ice shelves.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-antarctica-
ice-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-antarctica-ice-
idUSBRE93E08D20130415)

It's a complicated topic, I guess.

------
ChuckMcM
While I agree this article panders to the climate change skeptics, the
following paragraph captures the actual issue:

 _"Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the
many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the
Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035."_

The rash of black and white statements about what will happen based on
"unequivocal" data and dire predictions of gloom and doom. All because some
folks decided to use their view of science to push a political agenda in a
direction they wanted to go (or their supporters did).

We risk having the public, especially the US public who is woefully under-
trained in what science is, retreat further into mysticism and various other
belief systems. That would be bad for everyone.

------
arctangent
I'm no expert on Earth's climate but I do find it interesting that we are
technically in an "ice age" right now. This sort of implies to me that we
should expect a rise in temperature as a natural part of climate change.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age>

~~~
Retric
The current Ice age is 2.6 million years old. We have been in an inter-glacial
period aka the warm part of an ice age for the last 11,400 years. Which if
anything suggests we should be heading to the colder part of an Ice age as
they don't last all that long. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial>

PS: These things also nest, _Brief periods of milder climate that occurred
during the last glacial are called interstadials._ Which are inside an
Iterglaical which is inside an ice age.

------
BenoitEssiambre
How can you publish an article like that and not include a graph? Anybody know
what data they are taking about?

~~~
Retric
Here are some graphs which make this seem less interesting.

[http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-
change-...](http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-change-
history)

PS: This is the kind of article that ignores error bars in predictions. The
point is to create interest and sell articles.

~~~
glenra
> _Here are some graphs which make this seem less interesting._

Your source shows a graph that stops in 2005 and one that stops in 2000. But
the subject of OP is how much it seems to be warming (or not) in _this_
century. Those extra 7 to 13 years of data that your graphs left out _is_ the
interesting part.

~~~
Retric
If you want more recent data here it is:
<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/>

However, my point was looking further in the past you see a more complex trend
than the near strait line temperature increase from 1960-2000 or 1920-2000
that are used to scare people. Basically, the five year average is more random
than some carefully crafted graphs show.

~~~
glenra
Right, and it was a plausible response back when the rate of increase had only
been slow-to-none for ~5 years. But as the length of the slowdown increases to
more than a decade and starts to approach _two_ decades that becomes less
tenable. There's a REASON those two charts haven't been updated, which is that
even a plot of the five year average points WOULD show a slowdown if you did
it today.

Yes, it's true that there have been extended slowdowns/downturns before, (eg,
1920-1940) but those were seen as _needing an explanation_. (Or at least some
handwaving.) AFAIK we don't really have _an explanation_ for the current
slowdown. One possible explanation is that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than we
thought.

------
thaumaturgy
There is a sort of "missing heat" problem, but that has (probably) already
been solved: [http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0328-hance-climate-missing-
hea...](http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0328-hance-climate-missing-heat.html)

------
youngerdryas
This is being heavily flagged because it is an inconvenient truth. Oh the
irony.

