Climate change: Fresh doubt over global warming 'pause' - Polidicks

[quote]A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research. Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century. But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades. With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears. The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years". But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant. Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models. The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems. Back in the 1990s, ship measurements made up the vast majority of the data, whereas now the more accurate and consistent buoys account for 85% of measurements.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38513740[/url]

[QUOTE]"If people disagree with things they should ask other scientists to look into it rather than demanding access to scientists' emails," said Zeke Hausfather. [/QUOTE] :v:

oh so the result is that things are warmer and worse than we thought...

lol we're so fucked.

Quick, if everyone stop believing in global warming at the same time, then it won't happen!

Future generations will curse over us.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;51627300]Future generations will curse over us.[/QUOTE] I'm just gonna say "Good thing there won't be very many future generations at this rate," just to get another one of the standard melodramatic posts out of the way.

Slowing isn't stopping anyway, so even it if were true that it were slowing, it's no reason to not curb pollution or go green.

It probably won't affect the predictions too much ( considering they aren't just extrapolated from past 15 years ), but this is an important middle finger to deniers who spout "there's pause so its not happening".

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51627355]Slowing isn't stopping anyway, so even it if were true that it were slowing, it's no reason to not curb pollution or go green.[/QUOTE] It's enough for the people who deny it anyway. They'll spin it as "see, nothing to worry about."

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51627355]Slowing isn't stopping anyway, so even it if were true that it were slowing, it's no reason to not curb pollution or go green.[/QUOTE] I will never understand that line of argument. It's like being in a car that's headed towards a brick wall, so you step on the brake to slow down the car. Except the moment the car starts slowing down you go 'oh, the car's slowing down, guess I can take my foot off the brake pedal now'. Then the car crashes into the wall and you lie there, blood dripping down your forehead, genuinely puzzled as to why you hit the wall.

[QUOTE=Sasupoika;51627565]It probably won't affect the predictions too much ( considering they aren't just extrapolated from past 15 years ), but this is an important middle finger to deniers who spout "there's pause so its not happening".[/QUOTE] "Liberal scientists being paid off to change the data so it fits the alarmist narrative!"

Every climate scientist I've met have been so fucking poor they have to water down their whole milk just to make it last, lmao. People who think research grants are making people filthy rich are just off the wall conspiracy theorist.

Interesting, I remember there being doubt over the "pause" in climate change due to the samples that reflected the pause compared to the rest of the data over a longer period of time, pointing to potential error in statistical analysis. However, it makes much more sense about the instrumentation that they're using giving better data now than it did in the past. For those of you who just skimmed the article, it seems that older measurements were primarily ship borne, whilst newer instruments are long term buoys that are placed in the ocean, with the buoys providing longer term and more accurate data. The buoy data is in conflict with ship borne data in regards to ocean temperature, and is problematic to analyze together (with two sets of data, one must compare them to an accurate set to determine significance, which unlike in more controlled experiments in physics and chemistry, just doesn't always exist). It also seems that climatology faces some unique challenges compared to other sciences, primarily that it seems that as a mostly field science, their instruments can only do so much and go so far, so to get an accurate model one must piece together data from a bunch of different places, with various techniques, which for any of you who study statistics you know turns into a giant mess when conducting analysis. Also, as another poster mentioned, grant writing sucks and the money that our science organizations get is a pittance compared to what they really need. Scientists don't get rich unless they work in the private sector, and even then that is rare.