The 39th Theory About The Global Warming ‘Pause’ (And Counting) See the full list here
In popular science journalism the latest is always the best. With all the explanations for the “pause” in global surface temperatures since 1997 – there are now over 30 of them – it is always the most recently published one that is the “answer.” This time it’s the Atlantic Ocean that’s to blame. A paper published in Science says that a 30-year periodicity warms and cools the world by sequestering heat below the ocean’s surface and then releasing it. You don’t have to look very deeply at the science to realise that, despite the headlines, no one has come up with an answer to the “pause.” –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 26 August 2014
The “pause” in global warming may last another decade before surface temperatures start rising again, according to scientists who say heat is being stored in the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans. A new study, published in the journal Science, suggests that a natural cycle of ocean currents has caused the phenomenon by drawing heat from shallow waters down almost a mile into the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans. The cycle naturally produces periods of roughly 30 years in which heat is stored near the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, leading to warmer temperatures, followed by roughly 30 years in which it is stored in the depths, causing cooler surface temperatures, it suggests. –Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 21 August 2014
Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth’s surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community. More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus,” said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. –Hannah Hickey, The University of Washington, 21 August 2014
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research. A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy. Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 3 November 2013
The American Meteorological Society has released updated polling results of their membership which shows only 52% agree with the so-called “consensus” that global warming is mostly man-made. The poll finds “members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic.” —The Hockey Schtick, 24 August 2014
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF
48% of meteorologists believe in AGW? No data on what they believe the “danger level” is?
belief is subjective, everything is relative, until you ascertain the quantum nuances of the earths creative fields and know that all is one, you will be a slave to the system. there is no good, no bad, nothing exists. the only thing that exists is love and until you embrace love and cast off hate you will be causing disharmony. The transluscent discombobulations of the capitalist bourgeois oozes a materialist patriarchical nihilism that eats away at the core of the individual, oppresses all minorities/people of colour while abusing them and making them abuse the enviroment. This system of capitalist oppression can only be stopped by a revolution of spirit and love. We are love experiencing the universe, consciousness is love, bigotry, racism, xenophobia and homohobia are all crimes against love and hate manifest, we must destroy all that is hateful with violence if needed. The west if the cause of all the pollution and the wars ever, we need to destroy them. Don’t believe NASA’s lies, no white man has left this planet and they lie about our climate all the time, there is no cooling or “pause’ we’re only getting hotter and hotter and hotter and the western world is WAY more polluted than the third world, their maps are completely false. Their attempts to portray people of colour as bigger polluters are racist fabrications and so is their attempts to make them look like they are responisble for overpopulation, half the world is white and half that is male we have to force every white male to take sterility drugs so they don’t overpopulate and further destroy our planet. They are the biggest consumers and polluters and they lie constantly and never give aid to anyone in any situation, non-whites abolished slavery first and the ancient aztec landed on the moon.
Is this person a refugee from the ‘Guardian’ newspaper?
In the PC world that we live in,this diatribe from this obvious racist should be reported to the police for them to take action!
LOL. That’s funny. Made my day! As I tell my kids, I never cease to delight in the absurd.
rip
Just read it like the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons “wah wah wah wah wah”…
I wanted to reply to this post, but, I just don’t know how to respond to insanity. This is the first time I have drawn a blank. You really need some help there poncho, you really do. . .
Meanwhile, over at Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak.html
(courtesy of Slashdot)
Irreversible Damage Seen From Climate Change in UN Leak
Humans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage to the planet unless there’s faster action to limit the fossil fuel emissions blamed for climate change, according to a leaked draft United Nations report.
Global warming already is affecting “all continents and across the oceans,” and further pollution from heat-trapping gases will raise the likelihood of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,” according to the document obtained by Bloomberg.
“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.
The study is the most important document produced by the UN about global warming, summarizing hundreds of papers. It’s designed to present the best scientific and economic analysis to government leaders and policymakers worldwide. It feeds into the UN-led effort drawing in more than 190 nations for an agreement on limiting emissions.
The report “will provide policymakers with a scientific foundation to tackle the challenge of climate change,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said in a statement from the panel’s office in Geneva. “It would help governments and other stakeholders work together at various levels, including a new international agreement to limit climate change” that countries intend to broker by the end of next year.
The draft, dated Aug. 25, was obtained by Bloomberg from a person with official access to it who asked not to be further identified because it hasn’t been published yet. It’s subject to line-by-line revision by representatives of governments around the world, and a final report is scheduled to be published on Nov. 2 in Copenhagen.
Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the contents of the report. The draft “is still a work in progress, which will certainly change — indeed that is the point of the review — and so it would be premature to discuss its contents at this stage,” Lynn said.
Economic losses for a warming level of 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels may reach 2 percent of global income, according to the panel, which acknowledged existing estimates are “incomplete,” and the calculation has “limitations.”
Temperatures have already warmed by 0.85 of a degree since 1880, it said. That’s quicker than the shift in the climate that brought the end of the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
The panel also acknowledged there are costs associated with keeping the temperature rise since industrialization below the 2-degree target. That’s the level endorsed by the nations negotiating on a climate deal. Doing so may lead to losses in global consumption of 1.7 percent in 2030, 3.4 percent in 2050 and 4.8 percent in 2100, according to the paper.
“Risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action,” the authors wrote.
The 127-page document includes a 32-page summary and is filled with language highlighting the dangers from rising temperatures. Those include damage to crop production, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and more pervasive heatwaves. The report mentions the word “risk” more than 350 times; “vulnerable” or “vulnerability” are written 61 times; and “irreversible” comes up 48 times.
Possible permanent changes include the melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland. That would boost sea levels by as much as 7 meters (23 feet) and threaten coastal cities from Miami to Bangkok along with island nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu.
The scientists said they have “medium confidence” that warming of less than 4 degrees Celsius would be enough to trigger such a melt, which would take at least a millennium.
Other effects the report flags include reduced food security as production of crops such as wheat, rice and maize in the tropics is damaged, melting of Arctic sea ice, and acidification of the oceans.
The report also shows the scale of the challenge in limiting global warming. To stand a two-thirds chance of meeting the temperature goal, cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since 1870 must be limited to about 2,900 gigatons, according to the study. Two thirds of that carbon already has been released into the atmosphere, they said.
The surface air temperature is projected to rise under all scenarios examined by the IPCC. It expects a gain of 0.3 degrees to 4.8 degrees for this century, depending on what policies governments pursue. That range would lead to a sea-level increase of 26 centimeters (10 inches) to 82 centimeters in addition to the 19 centimeters already recorded.
“Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases cease,” the researchers said. “The risk of abrupt and irreversible change increases as the magnitude of the warming increases.”
The pace of temperature increases slowed to about 0.05 of a degree per decade from 1998 through 2012 from 0.12 degrees per decade for the longer period spanning from 1951 to 2012. The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012. And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.
Over longer periods, the climate models seem to be more accurate. From 1951 to 2012, “simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend,” the IPCC researchers said.
The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand.
In all, more than 800 scientists from around the world have helped write the four reports, an exercise the UN last completed in 2007. It also uses inputs from earlier studies by the IPCC into renewable energy and extreme events and disasters.
“Possible permanent changes include the melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland. That would boost sea levels by as much as 7 meters (23 feet) and threaten coastal cities from Miami to Bangkok along with island nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu.”
And that kind of thing is deliberately deceitful. Yes, the melting of the entire Greenland Icecap would raise sea-level that much; and No, even warming to the more extreme alarmist predictions wouldn’t cause anywhere near a complete melting.
But there’s never a new explanation for the late 20thC warming.
Although it may be that the two are related?
Uh,
“Global Warming ‘Pause’ Could Last For 30 Years”
but “Climate Change” is forever.
Doesn’t ARGO go to this depth and what does it show?
The heat stored in the deep ocean would produce a temperature change that is too small to measure. That’s because the specific heat capacity of water can be thousands of times that of air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity
IIRC, someone calculated the temperature change in the deep ocean and it was around 1/1000 degree.
So a very safe choice…..can’t be falsified, thus not scientific
and this falsified the fact that global warming is a fact…because we can’t measure it acurately enough .
Argo will never plumb the depths that adherents of CAGW are prepared to sink to.
Lol, well said! 🙂
M Courntey,
I believe that in this ‘study’, which substitutes model run ‘reanalysis’ for hard data, that the authors state that fully 1/2 of late 20th Century warming was due to the Atlantiic Ocean process that is now causing ‘the Pause’. Funny how the media is ignoring that little boomshell in the paper.
“The science is settled.” Heh.
OK…So when does a “pause” stop being a pause and becomes climate?
I keep hearing over and over…30 yrs equals climate.
30 years of no warming falsifies their speculation. I keep pointing out that 30 years is regarded as climate. Sure the world will warm eventually but not as they told us in the beginning through to AR5. That is a fail.
Is it computable to determine how much the temp of the deep oceans would need to rise to verify the possible evidence to support this hypothesis?
Tax-funded science: A marginal increase in opacity by a trace gas in the atmosphere communicates catastrophic warming to the deep ocean by a mechanism that bypasses the surface. What a mysterious age we live in.
I know that the quoted evidence for the heat sneaking past ARGO and into the deep ocean is that the water is expanding and so causing the seas to rise.
I also hear that there has been no acceleration of sea-level rise during the pause and so that evidence would need to be rejected.
But am I right in saying there has been no acceleration in sea-level rise this millennium? It could provide evidence that the heat has gotten down there, somehow.
Yes.
I thought so.
In my mind, I’m always right.
But does anyone have a reference?
Can the science of getting ocean water to “expand” and “rise” be applied to a fine, single malt Scotch?
Survey was in 1/2012 with a 26% return-rate. Some water under the bridge since then.
Perfect timing.
As the cost to the home owners skyrocket, due to dumb “Mitigation ” policies.
Reality is no CAGW.
No constant warming.
And excuse 39 just rewords what skeptics asked in the beginning.
If this 30 year cycle is natural, what makes the other 30 years anthropogenic?
I don’t know? Is this an acceptable statement from former zealots, who insisted in imposing insane policies and costs upon society, during the period of their absolute certainty?
What happened to the 97% consensus that the magic gas rules?
Why are we required to use the terms hiatus and pause?
I use “plateau,” because it’s neutral about permanence.
I have to wonder how much more “proof” do we need….that not one single person out there knows what they are talking about
The extremely long-term trend is that the Earth is growing steadily colder. The brief warm-up at the end of the twentieth century was the ‘pause’.
So there are now at least 39 factors that the model makers failed to take into account that prevent their models from accurately reflecting reality. But nothing alters their conclusion that “We’re all gonna die!” if we don’t shut down industrial civilization.
Intellectually embarrassing.
Here is a quote from my 30 year climate forecast made in June 2010.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2010/06/thirty-year-climate-forecast.html
“A general earth cooling is thus more likely as was the case from 1940 to 1970 when similar conditions prevailed. Concurrent changes in the Arctic Oscillation suggest a pattern of meridional atmospheric flow will be more common than the more latitudinal flows of warmer periods.
Policymakers may wish to note the following possible effects on earth’s climate for the next 20 – 30 years. A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. In California the PDO will mean less rainfall with more forest fires in the south. However in the Cascades and Northern Sierras snowpack could increase since more of the rain could occur as snow. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and drought in the US corn belt and in Asia repeats of the harsh Mongolian and Chinese winters of 2009 – 10 . In Europe cold snowy winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .
There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency in summer and storm related blizzards more common in winter. ”
For the latest update of the cooling forecasts based on the 960 and 60 year periodicities in the temperature data and using the 10Be and neutron count data as the best proxy for solar activity see the latest post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com. ( Especially Figs 5 – 9 )
GCMs are worse than useless for climate prediction – they simply delude the modelers and the politicians into thinking they know what is going on and acting inappropriately. Any simpler semi empirical model that does not include an accounting for the quasi – millennial periodicity is also doomed to irrelevance.
Thank You Dr. Page ….
OT but [SNIP no buts, yes, it is, please don’t pollute threads – mod]
Whether it’s the Pacific, Atlantic or something else that is causing those oceans to behave with a 30 year periodicity of warming, then cooling, one only needs to look at global temperatures to see the 30 year cycle is crystal clear.
Dr. Spencer had a good article on this 6 years ago, regarding the PDO.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
Don Easterbrook, over a decade ago, had noted the significance of the PDO sign correlating with 30 year periods of (increased) warming, followed by cooling or, in the last decade+, suppressed warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/
The 30 year signature in global temperature graphs is blatantly clear. The changes in ocean indices are also clear and line up with the global temperature changes…………as well as other measures.
So it’s clear that there is in fact something significant happening at the same time. It’s possible that the oceans are swallowing up heat, then releasing it in 30 year cycles. There are some things, not yet identified that are happening related to this relationship. For sure there are other factors, independent of this relationship that we still don’t understand.
It’s absurd for any climate scientist with objectivity and integrity to continue with the “science is settled” position.
Water has a very high heat capacity, such that the ocean floor of dirt and rock might as well be seen as a more prominant eventual target of ocean heating than the thin airy atmosphere. Given that the Earth is so massive, that’s a nearly eternal heat reservoir that can act as a negative feedback on human time scales. Heat transfer by liquid to solid is a lot more coupled than liquid to a thin gas! Assuming only ocean/atmosphere as a closed system sounds just like climate “science” at work.
“Whether it’s the Pacific, Atlantic or something else that is causing those oceans to behave with a 30 year periodicity of warming, then cooling, one only needs to look at global temperatures to see the 30 year cycle is crystal clea”
To be more clear, that should say: “causing those oceans to behave with a 30 year periodicity that coincides with global temperatures warming, then cooling”.
If the ocean is capable of sequestering heat in the way that they say, apart from all if the other reasons for the “pause,” then why are we worried about warming at all?
No reason.
The energy is dissipated and dliuted over the vast volume of the ocean, and now finds itself living in layers of the ocean that have an average temperature of about 3degC.
It does not matter if that average is pushed up to 3.0001 degC, or 3.001degC, or 3.01 degC, because if that deep ocean comes back to the surface, it will cool the surface not warm it. We see this in La Nina when more cold water comes up from the deep, and this leads to cooler air temps. As we see when the shift is towards more La Ninas than El Ninos.
The extra expansion of the ocean is so small that there will not be greatly accelerated sea level rise.
In conclusion, problem is over as long as the oceans continue to gobble up all that extra DWLWIR energy.
This is the real problem behind their pet theory that energy is somehow hiding in the oceans. If it is, thats great because it is out of harms way.
If the ocean gave up its heat wouldn’t the ocean become cooler? And if the ocean becomes cooler wouldn’t the atmosphere?
It seems to me that the more warming of the ocean we see, the more the planet should warm. What am I missing?