Why do Y/A believers still insist that it's still warming?
...when the talking points are to concede but try to explain away the lack of warming?
N.B. of COURSE they say the warming will resume, bigger and badder than ever - - - long after it's become too late to undo the damage done by their agenda.
Those are the new talking points.
They're curiously very different from the old talking points, i.e., that the observed cooling in the second half of 2007 was just the result of a strong La Nina that would soon end, giving way to a hot 2008.
- JimZLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
There seems to be a false assumption that the climate is stable and never changes. That is the irritating nonsense that passes for science among alarmists (i.e.Dana). CLIMATE IS NOT STABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That fact is not debatable. As a geologist, I watch in frustrations as I see these people make claims as if they are complelely oblivious to natural history. What is more irritating is that the mind numbed minions out there accept this crap as science. If it can cool in the next 10 years due to PDO and other oscillations, then it can also cool for other reasons such as what caused the Little Ice Age or the last period of glaciation. This demonstrates that CO2 is not driving the climate and they know it. So what are they trying to prove. You are exactly right IMO. It is about enacting their political agenda, whether they do it knowingly or as useful idiots. That being said, we may very well warm. That wouldn't be a bad thing. It would be generally beneficial
- NoFloxLv 41 decade ago
I've been reading less answers stating "current warming", like if they try to avoid saying it. However, they do highlight the alleged human impact on the climate, how evil CO2 emissions are and how stupid is everybody who disagrees with them.
We are gonna start seeing more of these kind of articles in the mainstream media. I call it the "not being able to hide the truth for much longer" syndrome that the media is experiencing. But it's obvious that they are still trying to hold on to AGW really tight,
We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."
I say to that statement: "Yeah, nice try pal!" ☺
- Ben OLv 61 decade ago
Who'd have thought that a climate model that's not dominated by CO2 would be more accurate than the IPCC's models.
It looks like a bit of serious science in an field dominated by quacks. I notice the authors stop short of calling the IPCC a bunch of quacks, but they're not about to attribute any warming to CO2.
- 1 decade ago
Because these people are either:
1. Ignorant. In that they do not know the facts and evidence, are completely uneducated on the issue, but still seem to be 110% sure that global warming isn't (or isn't going to be) happening. A typical question is (Omg why do people think the world is going to fry? ITS NATURAL!)
Scientists are not saying the world is going to fry. They are saying that global climates are warming at unnatural rates, and they believe this is do to an increase in atmosphere by unnatural CO2 emissions.
2. In denial. They know the evidence. However, their opinions vastly outweigh any scientific evidence presented. Or their information is from the wrong source. Unfortunately, many organizations are taking information on climate change and misrepresenting it in ways which make it look false so that they may continue their practices. Or perhaps they are doing this themselves.Source(s): I'm an environmental science student. Here is an example of an oil firm funding the epidemic of denial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/enviro...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
ocean currents play a major role in climate as water holds far more heat than air.
We'll see how this plays out.
Since this model uses the currently accepted ghg forcing, if this model correctly predicts ocean current behavior, we should expect much lower temperatures than this model predicts if AGW is incorrect.
If the currents behave as this model predicts and the model makes te correct temperature prediction, then we will have further confirmed our understanding of ghg forcing.
The main reason believers insist that it is still warming is because it is still warming.
I have already provided you with links showing this, if you choose to rely on illegitimate sources, that's your decision, but don't expect others to take you serious.
- 1 decade ago
Because the trend, in the past and future, is warming. Did you see the graph of predicted temperatures? That article only predicted a few more years of even temperatures, followed by continued warming.
A couple years of even temperatures that's been predicted in a study that's obscure to most people, do not mean a continued trend of warming has been broken. In fact, the study you cited predicts continuous, unbroken warming from 2010 almost all the way to 2025. (The limit of their prediction.)
It's also important to notice that their simulation, using ocean data, (the green line) has underestimated actual temperatures every single year since about 1995.
EDIT: It's also interesting to note that only five years of even temperatures are marked on their charts, not ten, and most of those five years are over. The warming is expected to resume, according to their charts, in 2010, not 2018. Two years away.
Last addition: Please do not cite an article to support your argument, and then say that the article is untrustworthy because it does not support your long-term conclusions. If the article cannot be trusted, we cannot trust it to stay cool. If it is trustworthy, then we can trust that the data predicts warming. Make up your mind.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It would help if you read the article. In the third paragraph:
"However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future. "
The article is simply showing that researchers are adding more data to their climate models, to get a better idea of how climate will change.
"His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.
"In the long term, radiative forcing (the Earth's energy balance) dominates. But it's important for policymakers to realise the pattern," he told BBC News. "
Notice that in the chart at the end of the article, the observed mean temperature change follows a linear increase, that is midway between the two climate model predictions, one with the ocean data, which indicates cooling, and the other without, indicating warming.
There is a difference between climate change, and regional temperature changes, but you would be required to read to understand that.
- BBLv 71 decade ago
The Warmers are trying everything in their power to keep the myth of "Man-Did-It" Global Warming alive.
Don't forget.... When it recently became apparent to them that Global Warming was petering out, and actually turning in the other direction (Cooling), they changed their jargon to include "Climate Change". Under that 'banner', the Warmers have now rationalized (among themselves) anything and everything that has to do with our climate is being caused by Man, and that almost everything that Man does, disrupts our climate.
It's getting to the point of being ridiculous..... good grief.... some of these 'green' money-grubbers are peddling crap like "green" (not the color) condoms.... "green" deodorant.....etc. When are people going to clue in on this nonsense and say "NO MORE"!!
They are doing this.... especially the likes of James Hansen and Heidi Cullen and their ilk..... so that they do not fall back into obscurity in terms of fame and fortune.... they are acting for personal gain only!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Wait, wait, I know this one....give me a second....I can't quite recall........oh yeah, now I remember.
Because it is!
The article you link is about one study that predicts *the next decade* will not warm. Most climate scientists disagree with it, but the fact remains it doesn't say that *right now* there is a "lack of warming", as you suggest. It's right there in the headline mate.
"Next decade 'may see no warming' "
Did you notice those first 2 words?
Funny, all of the sudden you think climate models are right when they predict no warming. That's rather convenient.