The Global Warming Plateau

[Shady]

I found these stories pretty interesting...

What to Make of a Warming Plateau

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

Climate Scientists Struggle to expalin warming slowdown

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.

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

It just goes to show just how little we truely understand about the inner workings of the earth's climate system. Anyone telling you that they do, is most likely pushing a political agenda.

[DogOnPorch]

Either way re: climate change...man made or nature...what needs to be done is to stop polluting the planet and destroying natural habitats. While we might be somewhat onto this in the West...the rest of the planet is quickly becoming a cesspool.

[Pliny]

President Obama still claiming climate change is the biggest global threat. Something needs to be done before it is too late.

Really the models being wrong tells us that any climate change we have experienced is not anthropomorphically generated.

Of course, we should have some attention on resolving pollution problems.

I think that governments are well aware of the fact that we are, and we must, move away from fossil fuels as they may last only another hundred years and for the last fifty or so it will be too expensive for most people to afford.

But what government has to do is recover the loss of revenues they would suffer if we ended using fossil fuels. Carbon taxes?

[waldo]

Really the models being wrong tells us that any climate change we have experienced is not anthropomorphically generated.

oh no... Pliny... not models again!!! I am quite sure citation requests remain outstanding - what are you waiting for?

[waldo]

I found these stories pretty interesting...

It just goes to show just how little we truely understand about the inner workings of the earth's climate system. Anyone telling you that they do, is most likely pushing a political agenda.

no - it just goes to show that you follow what you want to accept and believe! It also shows, as discussed many times on MLW, the sorry state of journalists reporting on science/AGW&CC

your Reuters' linked article (it's author, Alister Doyle) offers the classic case in point! The very week prior to your linked article the same author... the same guy... provides the following article that totally contradicts what he says a week later (in your linked article)! Do not worry Shady, I will not bother to link & quote with your same brazen sized fonts: Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change:

of course, the buildup of Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is not a new... suddenly realized... revelation - well, I guess it is to your linked journalist, hey Shady! Perhaps your first clue should have been obvious... in your linked article, no actual climate scientist is even mentioned/quoted!

of course, the so-called plateau... the stall... the slowdown - none of that exists... unless you take the denier isolationist view and purposely focus only on surface air temperatures, while ignoring that 90% of all warming goes into the oceans. A recent study, consistent with earlier studies detailing the OHC within respective ocean layers: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

.

[Bryan]

LOL @ Waldo!

"Where's the warming?"

"Um, it's hiding in the ocean! Yeah, that's it!"

I love the weasel words "may", "might", etc. In other words, just like surface warming, the alarmists are flat out making it up.

[waldo]

LOL @ Waldo!

"Where's the warming?"

"Um, it's hiding in the ocean! Yeah, that's it!"

I love the weasel words "may", "might", etc. In other words, just like surface warming, the alarmists are flat out making it up.

there's nothing hiding... other than your outright denial! Why not just come right out and say it, hey?

as to your claim regarding surface warming... that something is being "made up"... citation request.

[Shady]

This goes to show that the science isn't settled at all.

[waldo]

This goes to show that the science isn't settled at all.

why trot out the ole' standard reliable go-to meme? How many times on this board does that canard need to be dropped/played?

the "science is settled" meme is one regularly trotted out by fake skeptics. Legitimate skeptics realize that proponents of AGW/CC do not recognize science as ever being settled. However, this 'unsettled science' does not negate confidence levels and probabilities of known/recognized understandings within science, nor does it detract from certain aspects of science that are known with near 100% certainty.

Edited June 21, 2013 by waldo

[Pliny]

Waldo... oops... sorry, I mean, waldo, the whole premise of global warming is that it is an anthropogenic event. AGW with an emphasis on the "A". Specifically, the generation of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a greenhouse gas that will cause surface temperatures to rise. The argument now morphs into some new crisis hardly, if ever, before mentioned. Atmospheric temperatures seemed to suffice as an argument prior to a year ago when models were not proving to predict correct outcomes of those temperatures.

Even if the ocean is warming, waldo, is it anthropogenic in nature? That is what needs to be proven before we embark upon any extreme measures regarding our energy needs. Until then let's just gradually reduce our dependency upon fossil fuels through technology. Reducing our footprint, researching viable alternatives (Emphasis on viable)and fighting off extremist calls from politician's to run into the fox's den because the sky is falling.

[waldo]

The argument now morphs into some new crisis hardly, if ever, before mentioned. Atmospheric temperatures seemed to suffice as an argument prior to a year ago when models were not proving to predict correct outcomes of those temperatures.

nonsense! Ocean warming has been significantly studied for over a decade+... changes in observed ocean heat content (OHC) are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing. If you're interpreting a higher profile for ocean warming, it's only because, wait for it, wait for it... scientists have heightened their study focus, principally to account for why the rate of surface temperature warming is lower in recent years... and found the increased rates of OHC warming I mentioned earlier.

since you're all about models, here's a most dated 2001 study speaking to both your continued unsubstantiated claims concerning models as well as OHC:

DETECTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE WORLD'S OCEANS

Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models

another dated study Pliny... 2005... also a model/ocean heat transfer focus! I trust this one will (also) meet your astute scrutiny - yes? Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

[bush_cheney2004]

LOL @ Waldo!

"Where's the warming?"

"Um, it's hiding in the ocean! Yeah, that's it!"

I love the weasel words "may", "might", etc. In other words, just like surface warming, the alarmists are flat out making it up.

Par for the course....and like a bad soap opera on television, these guys will twist and squirm like worms to explain away any inconsistencies and falsehoods with yet more layers of theoretical BS.

[Mighty AC]

Waldo... oops... sorry, I mean, waldo, the whole premise of global warming is that it is an anthropogenic event. AGW with an emphasis on the "A". Specifically, the generation of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a greenhouse gas that will cause surface temperatures to rise. The argument now morphs into some new crisis hardly, if ever, before mentioned. Atmospheric temperatures seemed to suffice as an argument prior to a year ago when models were not proving to predict correct outcomes of those temperatures.

Even if the ocean is warming, waldo, is it anthropogenic in nature? That is what needs to be proven before we embark upon any extreme measures regarding our energy needs. Until then let's just gradually reduce our dependency upon fossil fuels through technology. Reducing our footprint, researching viable alternatives (Emphasis on viable)and fighting off extremist calls from politician's to run into the fox's den because the sky is falling.

Even if we ignore climate issues, I think we can all agree that fossil energy has to go simply due to economic, health and environmental reasons. The change need not be gradual though. The world is currently subsidizing fossil energy to the tune of Two Trillion Dollars annually. Shifting that same funding to renewable sources will very quickly put us well on the way to solving our energy and pollution problems. Despite the money and connections of the fossil energy industries, common sense is starting to prevail anyway. This story made me smile: World’s Biggest Coal Company Turns to Solar Energy to Lower Utility Bill

[waldo]

Par for the course....and like a bad soap opera on television, these guys will twist and squirm like worms to explain away any inconsistencies and falsehoods with yet more layers of theoretical BS.

the only 'twisting and squirming' is yours... please step forward and speak to your declared falsehoods... and layers of theoretical BS.

.

[Shady]

Par for the course....and like a bad soap opera on television, these guys will twist and squirm like worms to explain away any inconsistencies and falsehoods with yet more layers of theoretical BS.

Yep, their story seems to change faster than the weather. When something new and unexpected pops up, they spin for an answer, even though the new predicament was never mentioned in the first place. But the science is settled!!!!

[GostHacked]

Listening to the CBC on the way in this morning, they were talking about the floods in Alberta. Essentially the guest was talking about how they are going to need to change their models when it comes to measuring and predicitng certain weather patterns. One major even seems to be the jet stream has moved off it's regular course. And the 'river' systems in the air can carry a lot of water. The hotter the air, the more moisture it can hold.

And yet the deliberate weather modification currently taking place is not a factor in this at all. If you want to talk about anthropogenic, you may want to talk to these guys to make sure their methods to reduce the planet's temperature are not doing the opposite and actually facilitating in the warming.

I'll go back to another thread now.

[bush_cheney2004]

the only 'twisting and squirming' is yours... please step forward and speak to your declared falsehoods... and layers of theoretical BS.

.

Do you mean like Canada's Kyoto FAIL? Do you mean like that ?

[waldo]

Yep, their story seems to change faster than the weather. When something new and unexpected pops up, they spin for an answer, even though the new predicament was never mentioned in the first place. But the science is settled!!!!

continued nonsense! I've stated and provided support references that suggest Ocean Heat Content study is not something "new" - would you like me to quote from IPCC reports that speak to your fallacious "never mentioned in the first place" fabrication?

good on ya for keeping up the "science is settled" meme - go with your strengths!

[waldo]

Do you mean like Canada's Kyoto FAIL? Do you mean like that ?

no - in this context of this thread's science/AGW&CC focus, you spoke of "falsehoods"... of "theoretical BS". As I said, step-up and speak to your claims... or continue the backpedaling you've now initiated!

[Shady]

continued nonsense! I've stated and provided support references that suggest Ocean Heat Content study is not something "new" - would you like me to quote from IPCC reports that speak to your fallacious "never mentioned in the first place" fabrication?

good on ya for keeping up the "science is settled" meme - go with your strengths!

Ok, show me when a plateau was predicted.

[waldo]

Ok, show me when a plateau was predicted.

more nonsense! Your stated premise is that heat transfer, particularly ocean focused, is "something new"! It's not - duh! Scientific study now confirms that increased warming of the respective ocean layers (as detailed previously) has been occurring in recent years...

uhhhh... who predicts the unpredictable? What scientists do... is investigate why changes occur and attempt to attribute those changes. This is a concept that fake-skeptics/deniers have extreme difficulty with - clearly!

[Shady]

more nonsense! Your stated premise is that heat transfer, particularly ocean focused, is "something new"! It's not - duh! Scientific study now confirms that increased warming of the respective ocean layers (as detailed previously) has been occurring in recent years...

uhhhh... who predicts the unpredictable? What scientists do... is investigate why changes occur and attempt to attribute those changes. This is a concept that fake-skeptics/deniers have extreme difficulty with - clearly!

What's unpredictable? I thought the science was settled?

[waldo]

What's unpredictable? I thought the science was settled?

does your repeating the/your "science is settled" meme reinforce it (in your mind)?

[bush_cheney2004]

no - in this context of this thread's science/AGW&CC focus, you spoke of "falsehoods"... of "theoretical BS". As I said, step-up and speak to your claims... or continue the backpedaling you've now initiated!

It's already been covered several times, from the now embarrassing temperature change prediction models to the "neat trick" that hides cooling data. Canada's Kyoto FAIL was just another related falsehood in the political and economic space....promises and lies.

[waldo]

Listening to the CBC on the way in this morning, they were talking about the floods in Alberta. Essentially the guest was talking about how they are going to need to change their models when it comes to measuring and predicitng certain weather patterns. One major even seems to be the jet stream has moved off it's regular course. And the 'river' systems in the air can carry a lot of water. The hotter the air, the more moisture it can hold.

see anthropogenic sources... see global warming... see accelerated Arctic ice melting... see Arctic Amplification... see changing/shifting jet-stream... see an expectation of "more extreme weather events, such as heavy snowfall, heat waves, and flooding in North America and Europe, varying in location, intensity and timescales".

Scientific research is showing that the decreasing autumn Arctic sea ice has been linked to winter changes in Northern Hemispheric atmospheric circulation... causing a shift in the jet-stream position to allow cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. Additionally, the loss of Arctic sea ice also raises atmospheric water vapour content providing enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter.

Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters

NOAA led study:

...examined the wind patterns in the subarctic in the early summer between 2007 and 2012 as compared to the average for 1981 to 2010. They discovered that the previously normal west-to-east flowing upper-level winds have been replaced by a more north-south undulating, or wave-like pattern. This new wind pattern transports warmer air into the Arctic and pushes Arctic air farther south, and may influence the likelihood of persistent weather conditions in the mid-latitudes.

“Our research reveals a change in the summer Arctic wind pattern over the past six years. This shift demonstrates a physical connection between reduced Arctic sea ice in the summer, loss of Greenland ice, and potentially, weather in North American and Europe,” said Overland, a NOAA research oceanographer.

These shifts in winds not only affect weather patterns throughout the Arctic but are also thought to influence weather in Greenland, the United States, and western Europe. Understanding such links is an ongoing area of research, the scientists said. The effects of Arctic amplification will increase as more summer ice retreats over coming decades. Enhanced warming of the Arctic affects the jet stream by slowing its west-to-east winds and by promoting larger north-south meanders in the flow. Predicting those meanders and where the weather associated with them will be located in any given year, however, remains a challenge.

The researchers say that with more solar energy going into the Arctic Ocean because of lost ice, there is reason to expect more extreme weather events, such as heavy snowfall, heat waves, and flooding in North America and Europe but these will vary in location, intensity, and timescales.

“What we're seeing is stark evidence that the gradual temperature increase is not the important story related to climate change; it's the rapid regional changes and increased frequency of extreme weather that global warming is causing. As the Arctic warms at twice the global rate, we expect an increased probability of extreme weather events across the temperate latitudes of the northern hemisphere, where billions of people live,” said Jennifer Francis, Ph.D, of Rutgers.

And yet the deliberate weather modification currently taking place is not a factor in this at all. If you want to talk about anthropogenic, you may want to talk to these guys to make sure their methods to reduce the planet's temperature are not doing the opposite and actually facilitating in the warming.

do tell... do tell!

.