“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear," said Professor Matthew England"
“The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Professor England said.
“Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid."
“We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.” Source.
“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear," said Professor Matthew England"
“The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Professor England said.
“Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid."
“We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.” Source.
LOL, this is now "excuse #8" to explain the missing warming, and of course flyinfieros jumps right on the warming zombie bandwagon.
The excuses so far, links to each at original article
Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor
More warmist bullshit from the latest lame excuse that folks like flyinfieros buys into. These gems, pulled from an NBC news article and interview, along with the paper itself, and put into bullet points. Note the admitted failure of their computer models to explain any of this. The quotes are LAUGHABLE, and this is the latest proof from flyinfieros and the arm waving warmists.
NBC News: Problems with climate models are 'bad news for the climate research community' 'could erode trust in climate science' 'downplay natural variability'
NBC News, typically the most alarmist network on global warming, published a surprisingly balanced article today on the new paper finding excuse #8 for the 'pause' in global warming: Pacific trade winds.
Among the eye-opening quotes in the article are:
The "head-scratcher of a discrepancy between the temperature trends churned out by climate models and those observed in the real world"
"If you let the models do what they want to do without constraining them by observations, then they will not reproduce the hiatus," "And they don't do that because ... they do not reproduce this cooling over the past 10 or 20 years in the tropical Pacific. Instead they show, on average, warming."
"The picture is further muddled by the fact that "longer-term climate models have these winds weakening over the 21st century; that is to say 100 years from now they should be weaker. The fact that they have gotten stronger over the past 20 years, I think, is a surprise,"
"It suggests that there is something that is happening in the real system that is not quite captured in the models."
"The shortcomings of the climate models highlighted in this new paper feed into larger criticism that the models play down the importance of natural variability in the global climate system. "
it is bad news for the climate research community because it does point to a potential problem for the climate models." A problem with the models, in turn, could erode trust in climate science
The inability of the models to capture the observed wind trends and thus the hiatus is "just one small process in the global system that seems to need improvement,"
Originally posted by fierobear: LOL, this is now "excuse #8" to explain the missing warming, and of course flyinfieros jumps right on the warming zombie bandwagon.
The excuses so far, links to each at original article
Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor
A climate denier counting excuses. Now that's funny!
Those excuses for why it isn't warming as predicted all came from YOUR SIDE. So don't try to ignore them, or the absurd excuses quoted above from the paper that YOU LINKED.
Jane Jamison American Thinker Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:09 CST Print Climate-gate part I occurred in early December when a still-unknown person posted thousands of e-mails and documents on a scientific website. The e-mails showed that scientists at the leading "global warming" research institute in the world, East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) had "changed" weather data to prove their climate-warming theories, and squelched dissenting opinions from skeptical scientists to maintain credibility for their fraud.
Climate-gate part II begins now: The scientists with Icecap.us website announced findings late last week that not only was the CRU involved in producing fraudulent weather data, but two United States agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have also been falsifying climate reports for years. NOAA, the report concludes, is actually "ground-zero" for the fraud of global warming, not the East Anglia Institute.
Climate researchers have discovered that government researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "The Warmest Year on Record."
In a new report supported by SPPI, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations and then 'adjuting the data in ways that increase the apparent warming.
Originally posted by fierobear: Those excuses for why it isn't warming as predicted all came from YOUR SIDE. So don't try to ignore them,
It's funny you claim I'm ignoring 'excuses' for a 'pause' in atmospheric warming, meanwhile you ignore a vast majority of the warming in order to focus on atmospheric. If you eliminated atmospheric temperatures from the debate all together it wouldn't even make a difference. The oceans are rapidly warming: Source.
Therefore focusing on atmospheric temperatures in a short time period alone is absolutely meaningless.
Further, you keep using the word 'excuse' without valid context.
An excuse is "I can't respond because I'm having computer problems."
An excuse is not "We learned something new."
This was covered in the NBC article you selectively quoted to ignore portions that don't agree with you: "A problem with the models, in turn, could erode trust in climate science, noted England. But "that would be akin to writing off the medical profession for finding out something new about an illness that they didn't know about earlier," he said."
"Fyfe echoed the sentiment. Instead of undermining climate science, he said, "What you are seeing here in this discussion is the natural evolution of science and improving our understanding. The overall big picture that the planet is warming and that that warming is due to human influence stills stands with or without the hiatus.""
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: or the absurd excuses quoted above from the paper that YOU LINKED.
I linked to a university press release and a scientific journal. You linked to NBC news to feign some outrage. The quotes at NBC are from an interview and an NBC writer, not from the paper like you erroneously claim.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-11-2014).]
So what's changed over the past 10 to 15 years? The IPCC attributes the recent slowing of surface temperatures to a combination of external and internal climate factors. For example, solar activity has been relatively low and volcanic activity has been relatively high, causing less solar energy to reach the Earth's surface. At the same time, we're in the midst of cool ocean cycle phases, for example with a preponderance of La Niña events since 1999.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: To quote the same Guardian news story.....
You neglected to include the last sentence in the paragraph you quoted.
"So what's changed over the past 10 to 15 years? The IPCC attributes the recent slowing of surface temperatures to a combination of external and internal climate factors. For example, solar activity has been relatively low and volcanic activity has been relatively high, causing less solar energy to reach the Earth's surface. At the same time, we're in the midst of cool ocean cycle phases, for example with a preponderance of La Niña events since 1999. A number of recent studies have suggested that most of the recent slowing of surface warming is due to these ocean cycles."
The ocean is in the cycle of heat uptake. Eventually that cycle reverses and the ocean will start releasing heat. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-11-2014).]
What you are missing is the reason the Polar Vortex is on such a tear, so far south.
The Polar Vortex is held in place by the jet stream. The jet stream is constantly in conflict between warm southern air masses and cold northern air masses. It is pushed back and forth by these forces. This winter, the cold forces are simply overwhelming the warm southern air and encroaching on the southern states in a way seldom seen. The reason is simply that there is not enough power in the warm air masses to keep the cold north.
Similarly the hurricane season is generated by hot air masses near the equator and the hurricane activity is greatly reduced because it does not have enough hot air energy to generate the hurricanes.
Add to this the expanded sea ice in Antarctica and you have a picture of the effects of a quiet sun over 2 or 3 years.
There is absolutely no way that the expanded Polar Vortex has anything to do with CO2 and it has everything to do with less heat being fed into the atmosphere. This is exactly how ice ages start.
This winter ... there is not enough power in the warm air masses to keep the cold north.
Tell that to the residents of Alaska. For every cold lobe of the Polar Vortex that has pushed south this winter, a lobe of warm subtropical air has pushed north to fill the void.
Also try to tell that to the residents of Australia.
Although it may be cold right outside the door in Arn's world ... today, at least ... that does nothing to "prove" that the world climate is not warming globally. Weather is not climate!
quote
This is exactly how ice ages start.
Another amazing factoid, proclaimed thus by the man who doesn't even understand the difference between heat and temperature or the relationship between degrees Celsius and degrees Kelvin.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-12-2014).]
It's funny you claim I'm ignoring 'excuses' for a 'pause' in atmospheric warming, meanwhile you ignore a vast majority of the warming in order to focus on atmospheric. If you eliminated atmospheric temperatures from the debate all together it wouldn't even make a difference. The oceans are rapidly warming:
WRONG. The warmists couldn't find the warming in the atmosphere, so the movd it to the oceans like a giant global warming shell game. They simply cannot explain "the pause". NONE of the models predicted it,a and they can't explain it.
This graph appears to be based primarily on Levitus 2012. I'll get to an analysis of this later.
Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG. The warmists couldn't find the warming in the atmosphere, so the movd it to the oceans like a giant global warming shell game.
Paging Alex Jones…
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: They simply cannot explain "the pause".
You ignore 98% of the evidence, cherry pick atmospheric temperatures, and cherry pick a short time period, and declare a problem with the science, not your flawed and rather nutty method.
Further, you've still haven't explained where the warming came from to begin with. For a 'pause' to exist, some serious warming is a prerequisite. This highlights the conflicting nature of your position which overall, you have refused to clarify. You hold different positions depending on which is most convenient at the time. It's obvious you're trying to hide your political motives.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: NONE of the models predicted it,a and they can't explain it.
The models didn't predict lower solar output or increasing volcanic activity either, yet temperatures are still within range of the model projections: Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: This graph appears to be based primarily on Levitus 2012. I'll get to an analysis of this later.
Should I post a search query link on your usual denier blogs for you? Or do you plan to actually explain your argument in your own words?
Another prediction by "climate change scientists" bites the dust. They claimed that the Great Lakes will be warmer and see less ice during the winter. Lake Superior is likely to freeze over for the first time in 20 years. It is currently at 91%.
Another prediction by "climate change scientists" bites the dust. They claimed that the Great Lakes will be warmer and see less ice during the winter. Lake Superior is likely to freeze over for the first time in 20 years. It is currently at 91%.
An article from biased source about one year "trend" located in an isolated place on earth during winter. Seems sensible to believe it over the reams papers and Scientific Evidence.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-12-2014).]
If they keep getting very cold winters and near total freeze-overs of Lake Superior year in and year out (more than not) for the next 10 years or so, then I would take this "dissing" of the climate science predictions more seriously.
Here's the end of that report from the Daily Mail:
Air temperatures show this is the coldest winter since 1979, according to Twin Cities.
The widespread ice in January and early February this year 'wouldn't have been anomalous back in the '70s or with some of the winters in the mid-'90s'.
'But it certainly has been a while since we've seen this much ice this early,' Leshkevich said.
The extent of the freeze comes despite warnings from scientists that climate change was causing the lake to become warmer.
A study in 2007 suggested that the long-term trend was for higher air temperatures in summer over the lake, and less ice in winter on it.
So, this "cold one" stands out from the pack more than it would have in the 1970s or the mid-1990s--not at all inconsistent with the long term global warming trend starting about 1880 that most climate scientists have "consensed" on.
And that last sentence should be parsed as it was written, not as some straw-man argument types would like to think it was written:
A study in 2007 suggested that the long-term trend was for higher air temperatures in summer over the lake, and less ice in winter on it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-12-2014).]
Doug85GT links back to one of my recent posts where I offered this observation from NASA:
quote
2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century.
So 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1880 (GISS mean global surface temperature) were as recent as 2000 or later.
"When you're in a hole, stop digging..."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-12-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Dry Polar Dry Moderate Dry Tropical Moist Polar Moist Moderate Moist Tropical
Feel free to post which climate you currently live in and which one you think your climate will change to. Also give a time frame for your prediction.
South end of San Francisco Bay
Dry Moderate (current climate) -> by 2035->Dry Moderate: drier, with more frequent and longer dry spells, punctuated by infrequent but very heavy rainstorms, and overall warmer, trending to frequent daytime highs of 95 to 100 F from early May to mid-October.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2014).]
Does either side stand to gain monitarily depending on the findings? Have the budgets of the scientists been increased since 'global warming due to human activity' became mainstream? I'd like to compare pics of the work spaces of these scientists then and now. Is there money to be made by the government if the theory of global warming is accepted? Is carbon credit trading important or valuable? Do governments fine industries based on emmissions? Would the fines be greater if there were tighter regulations? Would acceptance of global warming spur tighter regulations? Does support of "green" jobs make a political statement? Is there an element of control associated with global warming, over individuals and industries, that the government can wield?
I think these are the most important questions. I don't know if the phenomenon is true or not. I don't know what information is out there. I don't know what information is being suppressed. I don't know if these numbers and stats are apple-to-apple comparisons. What I THINK is that this movement is driven by the desire to aquire power and money. Even if greenhouse gases COULD be reduced to the point of reversing or even SLOWING any climate change, it would have to be done on a GLOBAL scale. So, before you are ready to fight for tighter regulations and higher fines here at home which will only take more money out of yours and your neighbors pockets, you need to realize that your efforts and your tax and fine money will be like slipping money under the casino door when it is locked. No chance, no return on investment, no refund. I don't think our economy can sustain such a campaign.
[This message has been edited by Boostdreamer (edited 02-13-2014).]
