Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now hold on there, we all know you is going to post something to try and say Nature is wrong in publishing that. Or try and explain the conclusions of the paper in a different way.

Think about what you are doing first.
 
r-j said:
I get my science from Science and Nature where do you get yours?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

You can say it kept rising until the cows come home. It ain't going to make it true.
Click to expand...
A lot has happened since last August, including Cowton and Way, so we know ther has been no hiatus and the trend continues upward. The PDO switched from the positive, warm phase to the negative, cool phase early in this century which tends to obscure the warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (you'll have noticed that the cool phase of the PDO hasn't caused any cooling) but it's still warmer now globally than in the early 2000's. Not that thirteen years, with a PDO shift in it, tells us anything much really.

From that science you get :

"Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations. We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."
Click to expand...
Natural climate variability, which would naturally have cooled the average temperature. But it didn't. Check out UAH. Also the Sun is quiet, and no cooling. Warming, in fact. That's the enhanced greenhouse effect in action. Without a La Nina every two or three years you just can't keep it out of sight.

A negative PDO doesn't preclude an El Nino, of course, so you'd be risking a lot to nail your flag to surface temperatures as the be-all and end-all. If the Pause is important to you, how can its loss not be? Better to shrug it off now.
 
CapelDodger said:
A lot has happened since last August, including Cowton and Way, so we know ther has been no hiatus and the trend continues upward. The PDO switched from the positive, warm phase to the negative, cool phase early in this century which tends to obscure the warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (you'll have noticed that the cool phase of the PDO hasn't caused any cooling) but it's still warmer now globally than in the early 2000's. Not that thirteen years, with a PDO shift in it, tells us anything much really.

From that science you get :

Natural climate variability, which would naturally have cooled the average temperature. But it didn't. Check out UAH. Also the Sun is quiet, and no cooling. Warming, in fact. That's the enhanced greenhouse effect in action. Without a La Nina every two or three years you just can't keep it out of sight.

A negative PDO doesn't preclude an El Nino, of course, so you'd be risking a lot to nail your flag to surface temperatures as the be-all and end-all. If the Pause is important to you, how can its loss not be? Better to shrug it off now.
Click to expand...

Evidence be damned! Full speed ahead!
 
CapelDodger said:
A lot has happened since last August, including Cowton and Way, so we know ther has been no hiatus and the trend continues upward. The PDO switched from the positive, warm phase to the negative, cool phase early in this century which tends to obscure the warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (you'll have noticed that the cool phase of the PDO hasn't caused any cooling) but it's still warmer now globally than in the early 2000's. Not that thirteen years, with a PDO shift in it, tells us anything much really.

From that science you get :

Natural climate variability, which would naturally have cooled the average temperature. But it didn't. Check out UAH. Also the Sun is quiet, and no cooling. Warming, in fact. That's the enhanced greenhouse effect in action. Without a La Nina every two or three years you just can't keep it out of sight.

A negative PDO doesn't preclude an El Nino, of course, so you'd be risking a lot to nail your flag to surface temperatures as the be-all and end-all. If the Pause is important to you, how can its loss not be? Better to shrug it off now.
Click to expand...
Foster and Rahmstorf had been saying it even before then.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
 
Seems some don't yet understand that AGW stands for global and last time I checked there was more ocean than atmosphere.....

No pause there .

heat_content2000m.png


In fact an increase.

When that reverses with an El Nino which we may see in teh next 6 months...duck and cover for those impacted.

El Niño may make 2014 the hottest year on record

20:00 10 February 2014 by Michael Slezak

Hold onto your ice lollies. Long-term weather forecasts are suggesting 2014 might be the hottest year since records began. That's because climate bad-boy El Niño seems to be getting ready to spew heat into the atmosphere.

An El Niño occurs when warm water buried below the surface of the Pacific rises up and spreads along the equator towards America. For nine months or more it brings rain and flooding to areas around Peru and Ecuador, and drought and fires to Indonesia and Australia. It is part of a cycle called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
Click to expand...
\more

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-the-hottest-year-on-record.html#.UwSe53njP3w

Given Australia just had its hottest year ever WITHOUT an El Nino....:boxedin:
 
Trakar said:
Evidence be damned! Full speed ahead!
Click to expand...
It's funny, because you sound like the denier now.
r-j said:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

You can say it kept rising until the cows come home. It ain't going to make it true.
Click to expand...
Those claiming iot has kept warming, you also can't show any actual evidence to support your position.

Now it's moving goalposts time. Thirty years ago, it was the land-sea data that showed warming. But now that the land-sea evidence doesn't show warming, you claim the land-sea data isn't that important.

Do you really not see the hoops that have to be jumped through, to keep the myth alive? You use rhetoric and fallacies, rather than data and evidence and science, to try and continue saying "We were right all along".
 
Here's a way to understand what it sounds like.

"The models predict it will rain in three days, heavy long lasting rain"

A week later, no rain at all. Instead, dry and dusty conditions.

"The models were correct, we just didn't plan on a shift in the wind."

Then how can you say the model was right?

"If the wind hadn't shifted, they would have been right"

But the wind did shift, and they were wrong

"You don't understand how science works. We can't predict exactly when the rain will happen, but we can predict that it will"

Yeah, so what?

"It's like with global warming. There might be natural factors sopping it for now, but it will happen"

Just like it will eventually rain?

"Exactly. Science deals in probabilities, not accuracy"

So, you are just guessing. You don't really know what is going to happen, or when.

"Exactly, But it will be bad."

And you don't hear how that sounds?

"Clearly you hate science"

No, but you on the other hand, I think you are insane
 
Belz... said:
<cough> <cough> <cough>

Sorry, I had to fight my way to air from all that straw.
Click to expand...
Just wave your hands real fast. Here's another way to understand what it sounds like.

"The climate models predict it warm globally as CO2 increases"

decades later, no warnming at all. Instead, colder winters.

"The models were correct, we just didn't plan on a shift in the climate."

Then how can you say the model was right?

"If the climate hadn't shifted, they would have been right"

But the climate did shift, and they were wrong

"You don't understand how science works. We can't predict exactly when the warming will happen, but we can predict that it will"

Yeah, so what?

"It's just that right now, there might be natural factors sopping it for now, but it will happen"

Doesn't that happen all the time?

"Yes, but this warming is different. Also climate science deals in probabilities, not accuracy. we can't say where or when it will warm, or by how much"

So, you are just guessing. You don't really know what is going to happen, or when.

"Exactly, But it will be bad."

And you don't hear how that sounds?

"Clearly you hate science"

No, but you on the other hand, I think you are insane.
 
r-j said:
It's funny, because you sound like the denier now. Those claiming iot has kept warming, you also can't show any actual evidence to support your position.
Click to expand...

Of course, that was the intention.
 
r-j said:
Here's a way to understand what it sounds like...
Click to expand...

Exactly who thinks that any of the fallacious arguments you've asserted reflect the reality of climate science or climate models? No one that actually understands or works with these tools feels that your mischaracterizations and distorted rhetoric reflects anything but your own comically pitiful confusions about both science and reality.
 
Recent global-warming hiatus
Click to expand...
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century
Click to expand...
Sources
Extended data figures and tables
Easterling, D. R. & Wehner, M. F. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08706 (2009)

Foster, G. & Rahmstorf, S. Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044022 (2011)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
You can say it is still rising until the cows come home. It ain't going to make it true.
 
Why is the Nature peer reviewed science important? It is trying to expain the lack of warming, or rather ths light cooling, that all observations confirm. If it is indeed the winds allowing more cold water upwelling, it explains why what we know is happening is happening.

Those who claimed the "missing heat" was going into the deep oceans might be right, and since the discussion was about the heat content of the oceans and atmosphere, it explains why what the ocean does matters more than anything.

You can bury thousand year of warming in the ocean and it won't change the global mean ocean temperature enough to even measure it. Plus, the heat transported to the poles gets dumped into space there, and the cold water returning acts to keep the planet cool.

It's a climate system.
 
Those who still want to tell you it's still warming, faster than ever, they are science deniers.
 
r-j said:
I get my science from Science and Nature where do you get yours?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

You can say it kept rising until the cows come home. It ain't going to make it true.
Click to expand...
The paper doesn't support your contention. It's actually refuting the claim that there is a real pause. It says the energy imbalance is still there and that La Nina conditions are causing global temperatures to come in below trend.


This is what ALWAYS happens in a la Nina so it's already part of the natural variation in climate, and the abstract says this explicitly. This is why the "pause" doesn't come out as statistically significant, current conditions are well within the normal above/below trend range.
 
r-j said:
Now hold on there, we all know you is going to post something to try and say Nature is wrong in publishing that. Or try and explain the conclusions of the paper in a different way.
Click to expand...

I see no need to question their conclusions, but perhaps you should have read what you were linking instead just repeating something you saw mentioned on a woo-woo blog.

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom