Nations try to hide global warming slowdown

[questionmark]

I thought I was quite commonly known that the "pause on global warming" was due to the relative cool pacific ocean we have seen the last decade and a decline in stratospheric water vapour?

I'm amazed that the IPCC hasn't picked up on that. Or maybe as so many times before they actually have and its just the telegraphs reporter who cant read and understand what the report actually says, and therefor thinks the pause is unexplained.

Besides the Telegraph always was inclined to publish BS studies a la Lord Monckton (who nowadays, at best, gets published by the Mail).

[Little Fish]

Yes, I believe the stratospheric water vapour increase in the 80's and 90's accounted for about 30% of the temperature increase.

isn't the "consensus" that solar activity accounts for 50% of the warming?

[Little Fish]

The main pathway to the deep oceans is through the ocean gyres and the deep ocean conveyor which subducts warm water from the surface to the very deepest levels of the ocean

but you ignored Pielke's argument.

[Guest]

but you ignored Pielke's argument.

I know pielkes argument and it does nothing to disprove the main mixing mechanism which is what I described.

Faster and deeper transport to the deep oceans means surface temperatures could droop at the same time.

But I wouldn't necessarily agree with his premise;

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Br Cornelius

Edited September 23, 2013 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

isn't the "consensus" that solar activity accounts for 50% of the warming?

Not as far as I know. The last study I read said about 10% I think, might be more or less, will check up on it.

It's actually 11% here's the study http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Edited September 23, 2013 by BFB

[Big Bad Voodoo]

HA!

Big Bad Voodoo

[+DieChecker]

But Diechecker, there is nothing unusual in the current "slowdown", there are a number in the last 150years. No climate scientist will be eating crow unless and until we see a significant long term cooling trend emerge. That is a very long way off since we are still accumulating heat in the planetary system at about the same rate.

I suspect that it is the politically motivated deniers who will be eating crow, but it will be a while coming yet. Plenty of milage left in the ostrich stance yet

Br Cornelius

Who's talking about Climate Scientists? I'm talking about the ignorant Climate Change fanboys who throw out cherry picked facts as bad, or worse, then most any Denier. And who refuse to admit that anything except Armagedden is happening.

[MysticStrummer]

There is many people who are going to have to eat some crow if the speculation about GW stalling somewhat are true.

No one who had been paying attention to the discussion all along would think any crow eating was in order. Not yet anyway, and not for awhile.

What strikes me the most about the current state of the debate is that many of the same people who said something like "We can't possibly have enough data because of the long time spans we're talking about" are now using data that represents even less time to declare victory and say "I told you so".

Edited September 24, 2013 by MysticStrummer

[MonkeyLove]

the top level of the oceans are cooling, do you understand that in terms of temperature, the measurement difference of "heat" in the deep oceans is hundredth of a degree. firstly do you believe it is possible to measure the temperature of the entire deep ocean to that level of accuracy? can you categorically rule out underwater volcanism/black smokers as a source for the minuscule rise?

there are many other good arguments, such as that put forward by pielke that the rise in heat has not been detected in the surface, so how did just the deeper levels warm up (by an amount not distinguishable from noise)?

CO2 infra red re-radaiton is absorbed in the the first micron of water, it cannot pass hundreds of meters through water like UV to deliver its package of heat.

the quantity of energy in Watts/m2 of co reradiation that would produce this small rise is not enough to cause alarm, it suggests a low feedback for climate sensitivity, in other words the study you refer to suggests that catastrophic GW has been falsified, so why should I care?

why should anyone care about such a small increase in "temperature" in the deep oceans, even if it was possible to measure such a thing? how can you put such a thing into context given measurements have only been done for about seven years, nobody has shown its not natural oscillation.

all the models did not predict this, so yet another case of unfalsifiable "science" being put forward - its always going to warm somewhere and its always going to cool somewhere, all the time.

Ocean heat content must be considered:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

Otherwise, we will end up with an illogical conclusion such as warming that has stopped.

[highdesert50]

It had taken all of human history until around the period of the industrial revolution in 1800 for world population to reach one billion. In the last two centuries, the world population has risen from one billion to over seven billion. One may argue the particulars, but it would be extremely naive to not believe in the gross environmental impact of humanity on this planet in light of the industrial revolution. That we all want to eat, procreate, live longer, be warm in the winter, and travel by fossil fuel is a given too, as are the inevitable environmental changes brought about by too many humans. Whether one believes we are in the throes of global warning or not, it is inevitable as are diminishing resources, pandemics, and strife. How we wish to deal with these inevitable changes is left to a wonderful trait humans are provided, foresight.

[Calle]

Good, because if they keep saying world is going down, then everyone will keep inventing greener methods of doing ****

[MonkeyLove]

"Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

[Doug1029]

The search for the causes of the "slowdown" seems to be settling on volcanic aerosols. This isn't good news because all the drivers of global warming remain in place, unaffected. Once the climate system clears the aerosols, warming is expected to return - with a vengeance. True, there are other things affecting the climate as well, such as a dip in solar output. But whether that is temporary or permanent remains to be seen and either way, warming will overcome the solar dip in a few years.

At best, we seem to have been granted a reprieve. What we do with it will determine what we have to live with in another decade or so.

Doug

[MonkeyLove]

"What ocean heating reveals about global warming"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

[Doug1029]

Just stumbled across an article that looks at the last millennium in in the northern hemisphere, essentially the same time interval examined by Mann et al. back in 1998. Results are similar to Mann's findings, but with a couple of differences: 1. Esper et al. found the Medieval Warm Period to be slightly warmer than did Mann. He also found the high temp (about 990 AD) to be a little more pronounced than Mann did. Since 1900 both chronologies are essentially identical. 2. Due to the slightly warmer MWP, Esper found that global temps have not quite reached the level they were in 990. The differences are minor.

No matter how you squirm, you can't make the temperature rise since 1908 go away.

Doug

Esper, J., E. R. Cook and F. H. Schweingruber. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. "Science" 22 March 2002 Vol. 295.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Doug1029

[MonkeyLove]

There's a 2012 paper but it refers to Scandinavia:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1544

[Doug1029]

There's a 2012 paper but it refers to Scandinavia:

http://www.skeptical...news.php?n=1544

Like you say; it's about Scandinavia. One problem with tree-ring chronologies is that they are heavily weighted in favor of the summer months. A two-degree change in summer temps shows up readily, but a ten-degree change in winter temps may be completely overlooked. From an ecological perspective, that doesn't matter as summer is when things are happening. Even down here in sunny Oklahoma, trees reflect very little of what happens in the way of temperatures between mid-October and early February. Beginning in February, a severe freeze (<11 degrees C.) will leave a narrow ring, but average temps don't have an effect until mid-March. If a tree is damaged in a severe storm between December 1st and mid-March a pair of narrow rings will form. But that leaves half of October and all of November when nothing seems to affect tree ring width.

Doug

[MonkeyLove]

Like you say; it's about Scandinavia. One problem with tree-ring chronologies is that they are heavily weighted in favor of the summer months. A two-degree change in summer temps shows up readily, but a ten-degree change in winter temps may be completely overlooked. From an ecological perspective, that doesn't matter as summer is when things are happening. Even down here in sunny Oklahoma, trees reflect very little of what happens in the way of temperatures between mid-October and early February. Beginning in February, a severe freeze (<11 degrees C.) will leave a narrow ring, but average temps don't have an effect until mid-March. If a tree is damaged in a severe storm between December 1st and mid-March a pair of narrow rings will form. But that leaves half of October and all of November when nothing seems to affect tree ring width.

Doug

That is why multiple data sets need to be considered. For example,

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=255020&st=30#entry4997859

There's also the NAS final report and others.

[Doug1029]

That is why multiple data sets need to be considered. For example,

http://www.unexplain...30#entry4997859

There's also the NAS final report and others.

I am also suspicious that rising CO2 levels may be confounding the warming signal in tree ring reconstructions. To test this, L-O-N-G datasets are needed, going back at least to 1800. Hopefully, I can test this in a year or two.

Doug

P.S.: Just re-read my previous post: that should be -11 degrees C., not +11 degrees C.

Doug

Edited December 3, 2013 by Doug1029