Climate Scientists Struggling...

So, climate science is highly complex and computer models have been wrong? Who would have guessed?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.

In other words climate science is extremely complicated and contains many variables we do not understand

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

So are you hoping the science is wrong to fit your political bias?

Lucky wrote: So are you hoping the science is wrong to fit your political bias?

That's not the impression I got from the post. I think the point being made is that climate science is not an absolute... which has been proven by the many false predictions over the years. Instead of debating only the solutions to climate change, we should also continue the debate the causes of climate change (which will continue to happen with or without human intervention).

Not a single thing in the article rebuts the scientific facts that global warming is occurring and that global warming is caused at least in part by anthropogenic causes. The only thing that can be taken from the article is that climate science is complex, which no one has ever denied.

Rick wrote:

Lucky wrote: So are you hoping the science is wrong to fit your political bias?

That's not the impression I got from the post. I think the point being made is that climate science is not an absolute... which has been proven by the many false predictions over the years. Instead of debating only the solutions to climate change, we should also continue the debate the causes of climate change (which will continue to happen with or without human intervention).

The article does not refute the causes due to greenhouse gases, only that there are other facts that help to mitigate the increase in the rate of global warming. Catastrophic events due to climate change will not necessarily happen if we take steps to reduce the causes of the rapid increase in global warming. The only thing that we do know is that without human intervention, the potential for catastrophic events due to global warming is even more likely to occur. The time for denying that is past. Now is the time to study the costs of not doing anything to intervene (mitigation from the damage) vs. the cost of taking steps to reduce the potential for damage before the damage is done.

After spending the day at The Denver Museum of Nature and Science I toured the Mammoths and Mastodons Titans of the Ice Age exhibit. According to the exhibit the average temperature at Snowmass where these creatures lived was warmer then while they were alive than it currently is now.
I thought that was pretty interesting since the humans were not burning fossil fuels back then.
The exhibit was in general pretty interesting

Gotta love it.

Over the last 15 years it's gone from "Global Warming" to "Billions and Billions will die" to "climate change" and to quote a famous dog "global warming is caused at least in part[/i]" to (from the article)... "Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions." What does recent NASA data have to say about all this?

A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt) claiming, "the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise." [1]

http://principia-scientific.org/support ... phere.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... mar_saber/

The data doesn't prove out the climate change apostles moving-target explanations. But like most thought that is generated more like religious theology than critical thinking... facts don't always matter as much as feelings.

What is funny is that you actually believe the misinterpration of the actual NASA report by the climate change denier blog. The actual NASA report is diametrically the opposite of what the PSI blog states. This is what the actual NASA report states:

A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.
“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... mar_saber/

while I give you props for actually providing a link to the blog rather than passing it off as your own work, it must be really embarrassing to claim such a propaganda piece as actual science. Surely you can do better.

But Dog, what about all the doomsayers? How many times did they cry wolf and now you expect us to believe them this time?
Peak oil. Only a few years ago, the respected Economist magazine was believing we had seen peak oil. And now it is coming out our ears.
Massive famines.
New Ice Age.
Like SC says, be very suspicious of the press because they want to draw eyes to their product and will over dramatize the possible dangers to get your attention.

I don't obtain my facts from the "press" or from "doomsayers". I leave that to conservatives.