The AGW comedy skit continues:
Has global warming stopped? No - it’s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans
Huge amounts of heat – equivalent to the power of 150 billion electric kettles – are being continuously absorbed by the deep ocean, which could explain why global warming has “paused” over the past 10 to 15 years, scientists have concluded in a series of reports to explain why the Earth’s rate of warming has slowed down.
Global average temperatures are higher now than they have ever been since modern records began. However, after a period of rapid temperature increases during the 1980s and 1990s there has been a significant slow-down since the turn of the century, leading some sceptics to claim that global warming has stopped.
A scientific assessment of the planet’s heat balance has found that the most likely explanation for the recent hiatus in global warming is the continual absorption of thermal energy by the huge “heat sink” of the deep ocean many hundreds of metres below the sea surface, according to scientists from the Met Office.
Senior climate scientists said that they had always expected periods when the rate of increase in temperatures would level off for a few years and emphasised that the last decade was still warmer than any previous decade, with 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurring since 2000.
Professor Rowan Sutton, a climate scientist at Reading University, said the temperatures have levelled off in the past, the latest example being in the 1940s and 1950s when sulphate pollutants from the post-war boom in industrial production may have acted as a shield against incoming solar radiation.
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
“Climate scientists absolutely expect variations in the rate at which surface temperature will rise….but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
The problem for the Met Office is to explain why the rate of increase in global temperatures has declined in recent years while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to accelerate. Sceptics claim that this shows there is not a strong link between the two...
Heh.
None of this was predicted by the models, on which warmists demanded we base the restructuring of global economics and government. Global warming "scientists" are now telling us that global warming isn't happening because hot water sinks.
At least the quality of the science hasn't changed.
Again:
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause."
Some people call it fraud.
To call it a pause or a hiatus assumes the it will someday start again, which assumes psychic powers. Let's just look at what is already in evidence. Global warming has stopped. It may start again but we don't know when. If it does then we can say that it was paused but until then, we don't know.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it bears repeating that global temperatures rise and fall all the time. Always have, always will. They were rising and falling long before humans were using fossil fuels and before humans even existed. So it goes without saying that there will probably be an uptick in global temperatures at some later date, just as there will probably be a downtick as well. Could be decades from now or even centuries. It will happen eventually, and when it does, some one will be there to say 'I told you so.'
JQ
They can never be wrong. No matter what happens, it proves they were right all along.
DeleteBen
JQ: "Also, it bears repeating that global temperatures rise and fall all the time. Always have, always will."
DeleteYou are right, JQ, temperatures have been going up and down, but if you stop there then you haven't gotten to half the story.
You see, my friend, the same can be said about the stock markets. Prices go up, prices go down. You can stop there and you will miss the boat entirely. Over the long term, the stock markets have been growing: the S&P 500 averaged an 8-percent annual return. It would be stupid to ignore that and wise to invest in the markets long-term.
The analogy between the stock markets and climate is quite illustrative. In both cases, there are plenty of factors that we simply can't take into account, so they are modeled as random noise. Some of the noise is not random and exhibits long-term correlations. We can't predict how either system will predict short-term, but we understand that long-term index averages and global temperature tend to rise. Ignore that at your own risk.
Hoo
Temperature is not the stock market. Not even close. The stock market does not go up and down without the interference of human activity. The stock market does not predate humans. The point I was trying to make is that it's pretty inevitable that temperatures will again begin to increase, though it could be a very long time. No matter when it happens, they'll use it to vindicate their theory. It's also inevitable that temperatures will go down.
DeleteBut if you'd like to go with the stock market anology, how would you like it if the biggest brokers in the world emailed each other about >>hiding the decline<<? Or if they told you each other that they can't explain the lack of economic growth, but later told the public that the whole world is going to burn down if we don't pay for some carbon credit scheme? Would you believe these hucksters?
JQ
"...but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,”
ReplyDeleteSo the science isn't settled.
I would just like some kind of prediction of when the global warming will begin again. Call it a testable hypothesis. That way we can know if this theory has something to it or if it's all just hot air. Without a testable hypothesis, the warmists can always insist that the warming will recommence at some unspecified point in time that is perpetually right around the corner. When will it start again? Give me a window.
TRISH
You're asking too much, Trish. These people aren't in the business of testable hypotheses. What do you think this is? Science?
DeleteBen
No, the science is not settled. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If not, pound the table. That's really what >>the science is settled is.<< It's table-pounding.
DeleteI'd like to see a testable hypothesis too, TRISH. They're the ones with the fancy computer models. Surely the models should be able to make a fairly accurate prediction of when this so-called pause will end. Then we can evaluate their claims. But they won't do that because they have no faith in their own theory or the models that they expect us to stake our economy on.
JQ
The notion that the deep oceans are "heat sink" is weird.
ReplyDeleteUp until climate "science" sprang upon the scene with its computer simulations, a heat sink was defined as a device (usually with relatively large surface area) that dissipated excess heat into the surrounding medium. Here is an image of a heat sink. They're commonly used in computers to dissipate heat away from microprocessors and even when using a soldering iron on heat-sensitive components.
It seems to be that heat transfer to the deep oceans would be storage, not dissipation.
Maybe they meant the kitchen sink.
This is a narrow definition of a heat sink used by people building electronic components. In thermodynamics, the definition is much broader. It is the latter one that is used in climate science.
DeleteHere is a definition of a heat sink and a heat source for pedestrians.
Hoo
Hang on...
ReplyDeleteAre these people suggesting that the earth has some sort of 'heat sink' in order to compensate for increased levels of gasses produced by organisms on it's surface? And that this is just a 'random' chance? One a gazillion zillion, but once again 'on the money' ?
That would imply one of two things, wouldn't it?
Either a) the world is alive and responsive to stimuli ('Gaia', mother earth, animism, the 'goddess' theory etc) or b) that it has built in (ie designed) compensation for it's INTENDED inhabitants by some unseen and (to them) never considered force with an end goal.
I suppose there is the loopy third consideration. That it is just mere chance that this just happens to be the case and that the laws of nature are once again stacked in the favour of LIFE on our little world.
Of course, this last option is no explanation at all.
Instead of reading the anti-science conspiracy wingnut propaganda sites, try reading what experts say, like here for example. Have fun.
ReplyDeleteSo they do think it's heat storage. I knew those morons at the Met didn't know what they were talking about.
Delete"Heat sink", indeed.
Glad to know the "experts" are at the top of their game. :-)
It's like you, guys, were born yesterday. The water has a high heat capacity (compared to air). When the water is colder than the air, it acts like a heat sink; when it's warmer, it acts like a heat source. Maybe you have never been near the ocean. If that's the case, I can tell you that daily temperatures fluctuate their much less than they do inland.
DeleteAnd it's not like climate models previously did not take the oceans into account. We are talking about much finer effects such as ocean currents, which can bring up colder water to the surface, thus making the ocean surface a more effective heat sink.
Hoo
Nature has a recent news item linked to a published research paper: Tropical ocean key to global warming ‘hiatus’ .
DeleteMaybe you guys should learn something before you ineptly criticize it.
Hoo
More computer simulations. Wow.
DeleteAny specific problems with the study, admiral? Or is it just tl;dr?
DeleteHoo
BTW, if the oceans are storing heat, they are not a "heat sink". A "heat sink" is not a system wherein heat sinks. "Heat sinks" dissipate, not store, heat.
DeleteNow, if the oceans are storing heat, where is the evidence in the thermocline? Not some fucking computer program, but the thermocline. And I'd like to see unadjusted data - or, as they say, just the data - please.
Hoots: "Any specific problems with the study..."
DeleteFor one thing, it's not a "study". It's a computer run attempting to correlate simulation output with historical data (see Fig 1). And given enough free parameters, I can match any empirical time series, anyway.
More computer simulations. Wow.
DeleteWhy don't you help out the authors and show them how to derive analytical solutions? Think of it this way: this is your chance to leave a legacy that benefits mankind.
You should give these scientists the benefit of your doubt. A lot of these climate modelers are very talented mathematicians and/or physicists. You might have been one of them.
Troi: "Why don't you help out the authors..."
DeleteBe glad to. But I'm expensive and available on a billable hours basis only.
But I'm expensive and available on a billable hours basis only.
DeleteOf course. That's the attitude when the future of mankind is at stake.
Ahhhhh. The Rapture cometh.
DeleteJust shake a Magic Hockey Stick over those data and the Himalayan glaciers will begin to melt.
It's good to see you admit to being in it for the money. I'm sure Jesus would applaud you.
DeleteI had no idea you were so concerned about my salvation.
DeleteAdmiral: BTW, if the oceans are storing heat, they are not a "heat sink". A "heat sink" is not a system wherein heat sinks. "Heat sinks" dissipate, not store, heat.
DeleteThat's a pretty stupid comment. A heat sink is whatever receives heat (just like a heat source is whatever gives off heat). It does not matter whether a sink stores heat or passes it on to something else.
Here is a definition of a heat sink from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
process, or region, in which energy is removed from the atmosphere in the form of heat.
No word on whether the sink stores the heat or passes it on.
Hoo
Troy, they don't get the climate modelers don't get the benefit of the doubt when they product they churn out is always wrong.
DeleteJQ
Hoo,
Delete"It's like you, guys, were born yesterday."
I can't speak for the rest of the folks, but it feels more like a thousand years ago when I read the illogical, agenda driven madness coming from the population control crowd whose entire platform is 'sustainability' and whose current favourite PR is AGW. (Not directed at you, Hoo. I refer to the wizards behind the curtain.
The water has a high heat capacity (compared to air). When the water is colder than the air, it acts like a heat sink; when it's warmer, it acts like a heat source."
Sure. No argument here. Lived near the waters most of my life. Even a moderate river effects the micro-climate temps and weather patters in the region surrounding it.
"Maybe you have never been near the ocean. If that's the case, I can tell you that daily temperatures fluctuate their much less than they do inland. "
Water (and air) current moderates climate and creates a wider variety in weather. This is no more a revelation that the presence of sunlight or lack thereof has an effect.
"And it's not like climate models previously did not take the oceans into account. We are talking about much finer effects such as ocean currents, which can bring up colder water to the surface, thus making the ocean surface a more effective heat sink. "
Well it is like that, actually. It's like these quacks that work for the wizards have extended end of the world once again, by pulling out a well known fact and presenting it as a revelation to explain their broken prophecy.
For decades opponents and those apathetic of/towards the various AGW and ice-age-is-coming theories have cited currents (air and water), the sun, the heliosphere and even geological factors as the driving force of climate shifts.
The argument seems to me, as a sceptic of the MAN MADE ( influenced regionally, sure - but MADE?) climate change theories, to suggest it must be man doing this because of one isolated factor in a giant system that they ADMIT compensates and adjusts (for political convenience, apparently) BEYOND the control of mankind. So it comes down to: Man does it, unless nature does it and they both do it when we say they do because we know everything - so PAY UP with your blood and gold and/or starve!' While they jet about making hundreds of millions for their degenerate, anti human projects.
But....By all means buy into it if that is your fancy. I do not seek to convert anyone. They can have at it.
To them I say:
Enjoy your basic biology and chemistry being taxed. Have a nice big Round Up burger, drink the dosed up water, vote for the favourite team, and fear the falling sky. While you're at it accept (in a nihilistic and materialist fashion) that there is nothing you can do about it, because you're just an animal that is ruled over by your betters.
But don't expect the sons of Adam to do so. There is not enough prozac, twerking, cell phones (ie tracking/monitor devices), drones, MTV in the whole world to turn all of us against our purpose. There is not enough barrycades to stop all the vets. There is not enough fear in us to be controlled ALL the time. There is not enough selfish hate to make us all knuckle under all the time.
Sooner or later the dam will break, and I just pray I am on the high ground and in the position to help all the dupes I know and love up on to dry land. To help them live without the driving fear that the sun will eat the moon and with the knowledge that their sacrifices to appease it were all in vain. To temper their righteous rage at those who stood upon the temple and demanded the blood and wealth of billions.
Egnor: "Global warming "scientists" are now telling us that global warming isn't happening because hot water sinks."
ReplyDeleteThat's what measurements are telling us. Are you familiar with the concept of measurements, Mike? Hope so.
Hoo
Your resistance to twerking and MTV is an inspiration to us all.
ReplyDelete-KW