Nature:Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’

[GaiaHunter]

Nature admits the pause in the warming.

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

It also admits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a big influence.

"For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.”

But remember folks, the science is settled and has been settled for decades now, we just don't know very well how it works...

 

[Geosurface]

But remember folks, the science is settled and has been settled for decades now, we just don't know very well how it works...

Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.

 

[boomerang]

It's never too early to start throwing money at a problem. Think of the success the War On Poverty has had. $15 Trillion and counting. Our government is like having hundreds of trophy wives you've got to keep happy so they don't grow unhappy and take still more from you.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Climate on the global temperature scale isn't measured yearly. It's a slow process with many variables/moving parts.

Out of curiosity, let's play a game. Let's say that the Pacific expelled a lot of heat, and now is able to be a heat sink again. What happens when that heat sink can no longer take more heat into the system? Will global temps probably rise or probably fall?

 

[boomerang]

Climate on the global temperature scale isn't measured yearly. It's a slow process with many variables/moving parts.

Out of curiosity, let's play a game. Let's say that the Pacific expelled a lot of heat, and now is able to be a heat sink again. What happens when that heat sink can no longer take more heat into the system? Will global temps probably rise or probably fall?

At what temperature would the Pacific no longer be able to accept heat? Lots of variables/moving parts here and the answers need to be known before any sort of hypothesis can be made.

 

[nehalem256]

Climate on the global temperature scale isn't measured yearly. It's a slow process with many variables/moving parts.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year

So exactly how many years is it appropriate to measure climate over?

 

[Greenman]

It's never too early to start throwing money at a problem. Think of the success the War On Poverty has had. $15 Trillion and counting. Our government is like having hundreds of trophy wives you've got to keep happy so they don't grow unhappy and take still more from you.

This, time and again we create a bottomless pit to pour money into.

 

[spittledip]

Maybe we made enough changes over the last decade to impact the climate significantly? I kind of doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

 

[Paul98]

So man made global warming has continued and natural climate cooling made it so the global temperatures kept about constant. Had man made global warming not continued the global temperatures would have fallen.

 

[nehalem256]

So man made global warming has continued and natural climate cooling made it so the global temperatures kept about constant. Had man made global warming not continued the global temperatures would have fallen.

Maybe that is a good thing:

The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps caused by fluorosis after the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783.[20] Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[21] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early fifteenth century), as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters, though Jared Diamond noted they had exceeded the agricultural carrying capacity before then. In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.[22] In Lisbon, Portugal, snowstorms were much more frequent than today. Heavy snowfalls in the winters of 1665, 1744 and 1886 were reported

According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, "Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Also interesting:

In China, warm-weather crops, such as oranges, were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries.[41] Also, two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China (AD 1660-1680, 1850–1880).

Interesting that it appears that both global cooling and global warming cause more extreme weather. There must be something magical about the temperature in the year 1900 that makes it the optimal global temperature!

 

[GaiaHunter]

So man made global warming has continued and natural climate cooling made it so the global temperatures kept about constant. Had man made global warming not continued the global temperatures would have fallen.

Or natural climate warming increased the temperature rapidly during the 80's and 90's and now the processed halted?

Maybe the climate is not particularly sensitive to CO2 and the Earth is just in a post Ice age warming period?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Maybe we made enough changes over the last decade to impact the climate significantly? I kind of doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

CO2 emissions keep increasing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-global-carbon-emissions-idUSBRE9AI00A20131119

"(Reuters) - Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise to a record 36 billion metric tons (39.683 billion tons) this year, a report by 49 researchers from 10 countries said, showing the failure of governments to rein in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

The report by the Global Carbon Project, which compiles data from research institutes worldwide each year, was published in the journal Earth Systems Data Discussions on Tuesday.

Its 2013 estimate represents a 2.1 percent gain versus 2012 and a 61 percent increase since 1990, the baseline year for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the only global agreement that places binding limits on national CO2 emission levels."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

At what temperature would the Pacific no longer be able to accept heat? Lots of variables/moving parts here and the answers need to be known before any sort of hypothesis can be made.

So, best not to do anything to stem the harm man is causing to the environment until even the most skeptical, pro-business layperson is convinced there is a problem?

I find people like you very hard to understand.

 

[Jaskalas]

The ocean ate my warming.

The world is watching, waiting, to witness the next El Ninio and if it breaks any records. If we ever surpass the 1998 temperature spike. Might prove difficult with the PDO turned "cold".

They claim the warm waters in the West Pacific are just waiting to be unleashed along with "record" warmth. Well then, I look forward to witnessing accurate predictions for a change.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So, best not to do anything to stem the harm man is causing to the environment until even the most skeptical, pro-business layperson is convinced there is a problem?

I find people like you very hard to understand.

As with everything it depends of the cost and the benefit and what you lose/win by investing in something opposed to other.

We could remove everyone appendix preemptively but instead we wait until it swallows to do so, despite being a life threatening situation.

Also we are talking about climate not environment - the physics of GHG are simple but the climate isn't and opposed to what has been said, the climate science is far from being settled.

 

[BUnit1701]

So, best not to do anything to stem the harm man is causing to the environment until even the most skeptical, pro-business layperson is convinced there is a problem?

I find people like you very hard to understand.

Well, some of us prefer these little things called facts to fear-mongering from environazis.

 

[GoPackGo]

CO2 emissions keep increasing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-global-carbon-emissions-idUSBRE9AI00A20131119

"(Reuters) - Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise to a record 36 billion metric tons (39.683 billion tons) this year, a report by 49 researchers from 10 countries said, showing the failure of governments to rein in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

The report by the Global Carbon Project, which compiles data from research institutes worldwide each year, was published in the journal Earth Systems Data Discussions on Tuesday.

Its 2013 estimate represents a 2.1 percent gain versus 2012 and a 61 percent increase since 1990, the baseline year for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the only global agreement that places binding limits on national CO2 emission levels."

C02 - The byproduct of a living planet.

 

[GoPackGo]

Well, some of us prefer these little things called facts to fear-mongering from environazis.

With Global Warming the rest of the environment is being ignored once again.

 

[Vic]

There is no debate that the earth is warming and has been doing so since the end of the last ice age. The only question is whether or not man made causes have been accelerating the warming.

Addressing "envronazis, " I would like to remind you all that people have property rights. If the shit from your property flows onto mine, I would be well within my rights to take legal action.

 

[boomerang]

So, best not to do anything to stem the harm man is causing to the environment until even the most skeptical, pro-business layperson is convinced there is a problem?

I find people like you very hard to understand.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Tell me the game plan for controlling the climate of the planet. Tell me how control over the climate will be accomplished, what the results will be, how long it will take, how we will measure the progress and how much it's going to cost. In other words make a business case for it.

We put men on the moon a long, long time ago and we didn't do it by taxing the hell out of everybody and spending it with no accountability. You want to accomplish something big (and controlling the climate is most definitely the biggest thing humans beings have ever and may ever take on) and you've got to have a plan, a backup plan, a way to measure the results, how long it will take to accomplish and how we'll know if we succeeded.

In other words we have to approach it like adults. Instead, we've got people getting all hysterical screaming that we have to do something! And we've damned near got enough people that think emotionally to make that happen.

If you believe the science is settled, which btw is a horseshit statement because the very nature of science means nothing is ever settled, then come up with a game plan that will show some results. It's far from being too much to ask.

 

[Paul98]

Or natural climate warming increased the temperature rapidly during the 80's and 90's and now the processed halted?

Maybe the climate is not particularly sensitive to CO2 and the Earth is just in a post Ice age warming period?

Given all that they said in the article, the question would be why aren't we cooling a good bit with all the cooling factors that have been going on recently.

 

[monovillage]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Tell me the game plan for controlling the climate of the planet. Tell me how control over the climate will be accomplished, what the results will be, how long it will take, how we will measure the progress and how much it's going to cost. In other words make a business case for it.

We put men on the moon a long, long time ago and we didn't do it by taxing the hell out of everybody and spending it with no accountability. You want to accomplish something big (and controlling the climate is most definitely the biggest thing humans beings have ever and may ever take on) and you've got to have a plan, a backup plan, a way to measure the results, how long it will take to accomplish and how we'll know if we succeeded.

In other words we have to approach it like adults. Instead, we've got people getting all hysterical screaming that we have to do something! And we've damned near got enough people that think emotionally to make that happen.

If you believe the science is settled, which btw is a horseshit statement because the very nature of science means nothing is ever settled, then come up with a game plan that will show some results. It's far from being too much to ask.

Wanting to throw a virgin into a volcano to appease the God of Global Warming doesn't make sense?

 

[boomerang]

Wanting to throw a virgin into a volcano to appease the God of Global Warming doesn't make sense?

Ha, love it! :thumbsup:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Given all that they said in the article, the question would be why aren't we cooling a good bit with all the cooling factors that have been going on recently.

Good question. If we did indeed have a robust understanding of how our climates works, we would know the answer. Unfortunately, this is not the case and all we're left with is speculation.

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no debate that the earth is warming and has been doing so since the end of the last ice age. The only question is whether or not man made causes have been accelerating the warming.

There is no question we have "accelerated" the warming, the question is how much? Unless it is something enormous which pops out of the graph and slaps us upside the face, even a little accelerated warming would look quite natural. If it's tenths of a degree over 100 years, that'd be very difficult to discern. If it's 2-3+ degrees over 100 years, the alarmist's argument begins to take shape.

Look back to this graph. We only warm significantly for 20 years out of every 50. Following the pattern of the past 100 years the next spike isn't expected until 2030-2040. The potential to immediately discern our warming signal lies between those natural increases. That's the rate of warming not clearly driven by our ocean cycles.

Another test might be to determine if the warming of each 20 year spike is different. If the more recent ones increase temperature at a faster rate. This is likely where they are taking their argument, if they cannot prove themselves accurate during the pause. They will argue that the oceans "ate it" and will release it next time the PDO churns out back-to-back El Ninos.

It would be reasonable to view the difference then, in another 20-30 years and put all arguments on this subject to rest.

For my "side" to be correct, there must not be significant warming between the warm ocean cycles. The increase in temperature during those periods must match or be similar to the 1930-1940s increase. If those two things remain true, then Climate Sensitivity cannot even be 1 degree Celsius, and is of no concern to us.

If it does not remain true, then a man-made CO2 signal becomes more clear. I would yield the greater wisdom to alarmists and whatever Climate Sensitivity that signal reveals.

So there it is. I've laid out my challenge to either win or lose. Though it may take the greater part of a lifetime to fulfill if this pause lasts another 20 years.