'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'
The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.
'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.
Friday, April 24, 2015
"Our climate models are wrong..."
"Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
But, but, but, I thought the science was settled. Oh, I'm sure Gore is already preparing a little treatise to go on the offensive of the AGW skeptics or is it Climate Change Skeptics now? I don't know anymore since leftists absolutely love to smear and change the goal posts on every single one of their arguments.
They're not ruling out AGW, just saying its not the IPCC's worst-case cataclysmic scenario.
This report will be widely reported I bet.
This is a new and more refined tack for Climate Alarmists: They acknowledge that climate changes are due to natural factors, as they've always been, but that increased greenhouse gases can throw off the delicate balance at any time with resultant Cataclysms, Apocalypses, Racism, Tears, and Other Bad Things. (Paraphrase.)
"'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown."
Haha, "this report will be widely reported I bet"
The study was done at Duke U but only published so far in the Daily Mail.
"Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013."
This is inside baseball. Fine tuning. The models get the "big picture" right, such is the claim.
So in this case, "wrong" in the headline means "imperfect."
Note the affirmation of the well-established belief in the probable effect of the accelerated accumulation of so-called "greenhouse gases."
P.S. I took a class in Earth science in undergrad. The instructor said that the expression "greenhouse gases" was somewhat colorful because it is known that it's not the conversion of wavelength, alone, that heats up a greenhouse.
Rather, the chief cause is the inhibition of air mixing.
Never verified that.
She seemed to know what she was talking about.
Oops. I got that wrong.
She referred to the greenhouse effect.
Let's get it right.
I do try to make it a point to be precise . . . sometimes.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
"Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013."
They are trying to engage the butterfly effect as a function of chaos theory by calling them wiggles. Idiots.
We're at the tail end of an inter-glacial period and they're still pushing the global warming tripe.
I thought that "Greenhouse Gases" refereed to inane liberal commentary about the Supreme Court.
"At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate..."
Aren't there some other possibilities that we might also want to mention to be balanced, open-minded, accurate, and scientific?
Somebody sounds a little frightened about finding this out. Watch your back, dude.
At any given moment, I could pass gas.
Post a Comment