How to talk to an OSTRICH: "Global Warming Stopped in 1998!"

Geoscientist and climate expert Richard Alley connects the dots of temperature to show the difference between short-term trends and long term direction. He uses milestones of his own life to make this key argument personal and memorable.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[MewCat100]

Even Hansen has made note of the lack of warming in recent years, but has not said that it contradicts AGW entirely. The point is that Hansen and other prominent scientists say two things:

1. There has been a sort of plateau recently that they can't explain

2. Temperatures are still very warm, the warmest they have been in recorded history.

Based on that, we need to understand why the warming has been stagnant so that we can better understand the entire climate and make better predictions.

[MewCat100]

Let me respond to your comment in bullet points:

1. Already watched the video and read the article at skeptical science. The skeptical science article has some flaws.

2. 25% of all manmade CO2 ever released should have had more impact, that is the point I am making. The point is not that global warming is not happening, but that there are deep flaws in our understanding of it.

3. The point is about climate models, not about global warming in general. Thanks for being an asswipe though.

3.

[baserocklove]

Did you even watch the video? Why don't you go over the skeptical science and look up your claim (i believe it's number 9 on their list of most popular claims) on their list, choose the advanced explanation, it's meticulously cited from the literature thats current, they remove the el nino and la nina enso effects, they remove volcanic negative forcing effects, what's left is human emmissions and steady upward trend. It's cited, the data is there for you to see. This is very well understood.

[MewCat100]

With 25% of all carbon emissions happening since 2000, the lack of warming in the last 20 years needs to be explained and taken into account in climate models. Something fundamental regarding how the climate operates has been missed because the last 20 years or so of temperature stasis do not fit with our current understanding. This is neither denial nor acceptance of AGW theory, but rather a call that real science be undertaken to understand the discrepancy.

[ThrowThoseCurtains]

This is a possibility, except that on the timescale we're working on (i.e centuries at a time rather than millions of years) it's getting warmer faster than it ever has before ever. And we are causing it.

Maybe, in 20,000 years, if you smooth over all the data, this ~80 years of warming (so far) won't show up. But we'll still have caused our own population crash because we messed with our own environment so much it couldn't support us... So I don't think we'll care.

[Norman Delingpole]

This is bullshit. The upwards trend he is showing may as well be a part of a "larger" downwards trend, it's that simple.

[eddiequest4]

We've tried "neutral" for 30 years. See where that got us? This is tipping point territory.

[eddiequest4]

why bother with inconsequentials? If silly humans don't (or prefer not to) understand the reality of this world and our effect on it, NOTHING will save you.

[cbrhawk1]

It implies the bias of looking for changes in climate rather than studying the actual direction of it with a neutral bias. It's strong evidence of bias since "climate change" is the new coined term to replace "Global Warming."

[rasraster]

What about "Climate Change" indicates a search for a human fingerprint?