Global warming slowdown could last another decade - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [B]The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.[/B] Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown. The researchers says this slow-moving current could continue to divert heat into the deep seas for another decade. However, they caution that global temperatures are likely to increase rapidly when the cycle flips to a warmer phase. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988[/url] We still need to work on shifting to green fuels, though. I just know there will be people that use this as an excuse to burn as much petrol as they can.

the part that worries me is the third world, china somewhat, but especially india, and then later africa. It'll probably take quite a bit of effort and money to keep them from continuing the problem. North America and Europe are getting pretty good with the exception of waste

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;45761285][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988[/URL] We still need to work on shifting to green fuels, though. I just know there will be people that use this as an excuse to burn as much petrol as they can.[/QUOTE] From what I've read it's not so much the slowdown that gives credence to the deniers, but the fact that none of the models predicted the slowdown showing that we really don't even understand what's happening.

In 10 years there will be another 10 year slowdown

[QUOTE=sgman91;45761501]From what I've read it's not so much the slowdown that gives credence to the deniers, but the fact that none of the models predicted the slowdown showing that we really don't even understand what's happening.[/QUOTE] we still have potential to release huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere, and while it is a stronger, albeit shorter term climate change agent, it's not going to be good news for the oceans of the world for that period of time which will have some pretty drastic consequences

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45761681]we still have potential to release huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere, and while it is a stronger, albeit shorter term climate change agent, it's not going to be good news for the oceans of the world for that period of time which will have some pretty drastic consequences[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that there isn't a pollution issue that needs to be addressed. I'm simply saying that if we understood the situation at hand, then we should be able to accurately predict it to some level of accuracy. Our current models completely failed. They predicted a continual increase that never happened. This stand for any scientific theory. If it isn't predictive, then it isn't a very good theory.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;45761521]In 10 years there will be another 10 year slowdown[/QUOTE]You don't believe in climate change do you.

Nature keeps giving us second chances, but we'll keep blowing them.

[B]THIS IS THE TIME WHERE WE CHANGE THIS AROUND! HURA LETS INVENT SOME SHIT![/B]

Cool. Less people bitching about it means more of a chance for truly green products to come out and less emphasis on bullshit yuppietastic bandaids like hybrids and battery EVs. Bring on the hydrogen fuel cells! ...and hydrogen conversion kits for piston engines. They'll burn H2 quite happily as well.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45764005]Cool. Less people bitching about it means more of a chance for truly green products to come out and less emphasis on bullshit yuppietastic bandaids like hybrids and battery EVs. Bring on the hydrogen fuel cells! ...and hydrogen conversion kits for piston engines. They'll burn H2 quite happily as well.[/QUOTE] My only concern with that is that water vapor (the by-product of this sort of fuel source) is also a potent green-house gas.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45764005]Cool. Less people bitching about it means more of a chance for truly green products to come out and less emphasis on bullshit yuppietastic bandaids like hybrids and battery EVs. Bring on the hydrogen fuel cells! ...and hydrogen conversion kits for piston engines. They'll burn H2 quite happily as well.[/QUOTE] Doesn't the process of separating the hydrogen from oxygen use a lot of electricity?

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;45764793]Doesn't the process of separating the hydrogen from oxygen use a lot of electricity?[/QUOTE] That's what uranium is for. Used responsibly, it gives you shitloads of clean, efficient energy.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;45764862]That's what uranium is for. Used responsibly, it gives you shitloads of clean, efficient energy.[/QUOTE] Thorium could as well.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;45764437]My only concern with that is that water vapor (the by-product of this sort of fuel source) is also a potent green-house gas.[/QUOTE] And it's one produced in far greater quantities when the sun lands on the Pacific Ocean than all the cars in the world could put out over the same time span. Plus all that water vapor would just condense and rain back down. It's a nonissue. And it may very well see a reduction in droughts, or at least a lessening of their severity, due to all the water vapor floating around in heavily populated, heavily trafficked, yet also very dry areas. [QUOTE=StrawberryClock;45764793]Doesn't the process of separating the hydrogen from oxygen use a lot of electricity?[/QUOTE] Split a few atoms and you're golden. If you have access to enough water for mass production of H2 and O2 gas you have access to enough water to keep a nuclear reactor nice and cool. Or, hell, fuse the atoms together I don't care. Maybe build a wall over a river in a canyon? If you want to be super [i]~eco~[/i] and charge a premium from the idiots that buy anything with a 'green product' label on it you can do it with solar energy, though it's not as efficient.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;45764862]That's what uranium is for. Used responsibly, it gives you shitloads of clean, efficient energy.[/QUOTE] Too bad nuclear energy is still stigmatised in a lot of people's minds. New Zealand's currently nuclear free, and my mother's boyfriend defends this because "nuclear energy caused Fukushima and Chernobyl!"

[QUOTE=sgman91;45762171]I'm not saying that there isn't a pollution issue that needs to be addressed. I'm simply saying that if we understood the situation at hand, then we should be able to accurately predict it to some level of accuracy. Our current models completely failed. They predicted a continual increase that never happened. This stand for any scientific theory. If it isn't predictive, then it isn't a very good theory.[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean it's incorrect though, just that it doesn't fully explain it. If the new research is correct, then it goes explains other slowdowns in heating, and predicts future ones.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;45765111]Too bad nuclear energy is still stigmatised in a lot of people's minds. New Zealand's currently nuclear free, and my mother's boyfriend defends this because "nuclear energy caused Fukushima and Chernobyl!"[/QUOTE] Send him that one certain FP post we all know about.

It would be great if the oil billionnaires behind the IPCC who are pushing out the catastrophic man made climate change propaganda used some of their own oil profits to clean up some of their [i]own[/i] pollution before analyzing the CO2 output of their considered-to-be-useless-eater-world-population.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45761439]the part that worries me is the third world, china somewhat, but especially india, and then later africa. It'll probably take quite a bit of effort and money to keep them from continuing the problem. North America and Europe are getting pretty good with the exception of waste[/QUOTE] That's because we ship it all to China. The EU targets are pointless with out China India and so on, but we do keep giving them our waste to recycle, and that does increase emissions. Green energy needs to be a lot more effective that it is. Batteries still need this components mined, and charging them requires more than the supply from current renewables. Damn I wish Hydrogen wasn't so...explodey. I think Honda were the closest to a breakthrough a few years ago.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45761501]From what I've read it's not so much the slowdown that gives credence to the deniers, but the fact that none of the models predicted the slowdown showing that we really don't even understand what's happening.[/QUOTE] The early climate models drew hockey stick shaped temperature prediction graphs. Flat then rising, and continuing to rise at ever increasing rates. As more data was discovered, such as the way the middle ages were much warmer than had been previously thought (indeed, if you weight the raised local temperature effect of modern cities more heavily than is normally done, it turns out the middle ages may well have been warmer than the 21st century), more complex climate models were built that matched earlier predictions while accounting for this new data. Then it turns out the old climate models will keep drawing those hockey stick shaped graph's even when fed with data derived from random atmospheric noise. So the old models are useless ****, and the new models are based on the old models... We need to start over on climate modelling, and to do that will take thousands of the top researchers in the field to admit that their careers so far have largely been wasted effort. Lets me know when pigs fly and hell freezes over...

[QUOTE=Killer900;45762430]You don't believe in climate change do you.[/QUOTE] The climate will change. If you don't change with it, it will destroy you

The planet is challenging us, lets get the diesel engines running fellas!

[QUOTE=EcksDee;45765839]Send him that one certain FP post we all know about.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/111996868/reactions/nuclear%20energy.JPG"]I keep it on a hotline[/URL]