Global Warming

No Global Warming For Maybe Another Decade

|

Temperature
Dreamstime: Meryll

Average global temperatures have been essentially flat for nearly the past 17 years, even as heat-trapping carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels has accumulated in the atmosphere. Now a new study published in Science reports that the current "pause" in man-made global warming is the result of currents in the North Atlantic burying the extra heat in the deep ocean. The researchers postulate that this phenomenon flips back and forth between hot and cold phases every 20 to 35 years. When it flips out of the current cold phase, average temperatures will begin to rise steeply.

The BBC reports:

The researchers say that there was another hiatus between 1945 and 1975 due to this current taking down the heat, that led to fears of a new ice age.

From 1976 though, the cycle flipped and contributed to the warming of the world, as more heat stayed on the surface.

But since the year 2000, the heat has been going deeper, and the world's overall temperatures haven't risen beyond the record set in 1998. …

A key element in this new understanding is the saltiness of the water. The waters in the Atlantic current coming up from the tropics are saltier because of evaporation. This sinks more quickly and takes the heat down with it.

Eventually though, the salty water melts enough ice in Arctic waters to lower the saline level, slowing down the current and keeping the heat near the surface.

"Before 2006 the saltiness was increasing, this indicated that the current was speeding up," said  [principal researcher] Prof [Ka-Kit] Tung [from the University of Washington].

"After 2006, this saltiness is diminishing but it's still above the long-term average. Now it is slowly slowing down.

"Once it gets below the long-term average, then it is the next period of rapid warming." …

"We probably may have another 10 years, maybe shorter as global warming itself is melting more ice and ice could flood the North Atlantic, but historically we are in the middle of the cycle."

The U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013 Physical Sciences report suggests that the current temperature slow-down will soon end and states, "It is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing." In other words, when the warm-up resumes it will soar. By how much? The IPCC report projects, "The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016-2035 relative to 1986-2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C." This implies increases of 0.15°C to 0.35°C per decade.

Hat tip Ken Constantino.

NEXT: Do Self-Driving Cars Make Speed Limits Obsolete?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The researchers postulate that this phenomenon flips back and forth between hot and cold phases every 20 to 35 years.

    It has to flip back and forth. The computer models show without it there is no forced transfer of resources.

    1. I see what you did there.

  2. Ron, did they actually measure the current shifts, e.g., did they measure the temperature of deep water to be unexpectedly high?

    1. They can’t. 10 years ago nobody was monitoring the deep oceans.

      The climate ‘scientists’ are behaving like seventh day adventists when the rapture failed to appear on schedule.

      1. There exist Eighth Day Adventists?

        1. Beatles fans.

      2. They can’t. 10 years ago nobody was monitoring the deep oceans.

        and for the last 10 years it has been flat.

        Why aren’t the deep oceans showing any heating when according to this paper it is the deep oceans that are hiding the heat.

        The deep oceans not only hide the surface heat but they hide the heat that is heating them….

        1. It’s hidden heat all the way down.

          1. It’s well known that cold water rises.

    2. They don’t like direct physical measurements. That kind of data is unreliable.

      They prefer data that needs to be “cleaned up.”

  3. “When it flips out of the current cold phase, average temperatures will begin to rise steeply.”

    Was this phenomenon identified pre- or post-1999? If post, then, how, uh, hmm… what’s the word? Convenient?

  4. Ah yes, the heat going deep bullshit.

    Conveniently, guess what system humanity just started monitoring? The oceans!

    It’s like going to a place that didn’t have birth certificates until 40 years ago, and finding people claiming to be 160 years old! Funny how that works!

    1. Heat rises. Except in the ocean. Why is this concept difficult for you to understand?

      1. Hot air rises. Heat moves from warm to cold.

        1. Diffusion is confusion. Don’t get all thermodymnamicsy on us.

        2. Francisco d’Anconia|8.21.14 @ 5:48PM|#
          “Hot air rises.”

          Pretty sure that’s “hot fluids rise”.

      2. Less-dense objects rise; more-dense objects sink. In the atmosphere, density is mostly controlled by temperature (with a small humidity effect). In the ocean, salinity is also very important, along with temperature, in determining density. A current that is warmer than surroundings can still sink if its salinity is high enough to compensate.

        1. As a matter of fact, oceanographers refer to ocean circulation as a thermohaline circulation to stress that salinity is as important as thermodynamics in describing the phenomenon.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..irculation

    2. And this ostensibly important factor was not part of the equations that 10, 20 or 30 years ago were all being touted as definitive proof. But don’t worry, we’ll have newer even more correcterer models to definitively prove our doom before this one even proves false.

      Someone tell the consensus there is new (rehashed) evidence to consider. If we can just lure the consensus into thinking they’ll read something that will confirm their bias, then they’ll accidentally consider evidence.

    3. Don’t the laws of thermodynamics have something to say about this? I am unaware of how heat remains in anyway discreet in a liquid. Saying “it went deep” is just another way of saying “the earth has a really high specific temperature” and it isn’t going to get any warmer.

      1. That was my thought too – obviously surface heat is the issue, with whatever is going on several miles below the surface not really being a factor.

        So if the heat “sinks” to the bottom of the ocean, doesn’t it become a “brick in the Grand Canyon,” so to speak, of the general heat of the big rock we live on?

        1. If the heat “sinks”, it warms the deep ocean and that is it. It can’t then someday return.

          1. The study doesn’t say they expect the heat to return. They just expect the heat to stop moving down there eventually. All things in nature oscillate, so it is conceivable. But most conceivable things aren’t true, and I bet this one falls into that category.

      2. I think you mean “specific heat capacity”.

      3. Did you ever hear of a warm air mass or a cold air mass? Fluids of different density don’t mix easily.

  5. Thank God I was so worried.

    1. If it’s 10 years out, can’t we just basically ignore it, like they do with government pension funding obligations?

      1. Anything more than 10 years can be ignored completely. Source: The CBO.

  6. The researchers postulate that this phenomenon flips back and forth between hot and cold phases every 20 to 35 years. When it flips out of the current cold phase, average temperatures will begin to rise steeply.

    Oh, what the actual hairy ten cent fuck.

    Well thank goodness all of a sudden we have a nice concrete deadline piss our pants over, since the whole we’re-all-gonna-drown-in-a-century failed to punch us back to the Stone Age.

    1. Seems like an interesting theory. Too bad it has to be immediately used to predict DOOM. When you have a new theory about something that we don’t really know too much about, it’s probably better to wait for some more evidence to support it.

      1. Nah we should just assume the absolute necessity to plunder and kill for the common good. We like promoting the common good at all costs. ALL costs.

        1. So you’re against the common good? Hang on, I’ll find your train car number.

        2. We’ll fight for the common good if we have kill everyone to do it!

  7. “It is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.”

    IOW, it may or may not get warmer.

    1. the man made ‘forcing’ will surely take place…whichever way the temperature moves

      1. Yep. As expected.

    2. Just like ten years ago all we really knew was that it was warmer than when it was colder.

  8. I’ve got a postulation for you, right here.

  9. So, climate scientists have added a postulate to this already unfalsified theory in an attempt to further insulate it from skepticism and rejection for another ten years or so. Very convenient.

    1. They do, however, require fresh federal funds to investigate this new postulate more fully, to determine just exactly how doomed we are without further government action.

    2. unfalsified theory

      Falsified theories aren’t generally terribly useful.

      1. He meant unfalsifiable and you know it.

  10. OT: Buffett made $6.3 billion on a $5 billion loan to Bank of America.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ement.html

    The guy can’t miss any more. You Peanuts must really hate him now.

    1. Your sublimated envy has a piquant undertone of bitterness, you know.

      1. Everyone here is “bitter” or angry to some obvious extent – mostly at the government or politicians in general. It is the best part of Hit&Run;.

        1. Get past your name on that purity test yet?

        2. When I start to get angry at the gov’t I simply remember the favorite things that we didn’t build and only exist because of gov’t and then I don’t feel…soooo baaaaad!

          1. +1 My Favorite Things

            1. +1 Julie Andrews

    2. Yes, because we all hate it when capitalists make money.

      Oh, wait…

      1. Buffet reaks of Cronyist, too. We do hate cronyists.

    3. OT: Buffett made $6.3 billion on a $5 billion loan to Bank of America.

      If he made that loan over 5 years ago he lost value due to inflation.

      Also he would have done better buying gold.

      1. Oh yeah and the price of bitcoin in 2009 was less then a penny.

  11. You know, I think they will finally connect the dots and realize that AGW is even affecting the Sun

    Climate Change Results in Unprecedented Solar Activity Events

    1. Yes. If empirical evidence shows that there is a correlation between unusually vigorous solar activity and warming on the Earth’s surface, it is no doubt the warming of the Earth’s surface that is causing this increase of solar activity.

      The same way the boiling water in my coffee cup makes the light in my microwave come on.

    2. I looked at your link and I don’t see anything that attributes the solar activity to Earth climate change. What am I missing?

      1. What am I missing?

        uh, sarcasm

  12. The Pacific and Atlantic decadal ocean oscillations have been known for some time. And they do explain about 40% of the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years. But almost all of the remaining temperature increase can be explained by correlation with sunspots. AGW accounts for a very small percentage,if any.

    The combination of sunspots and oscillations is the ONLY correlation that I know of that explains not only the magnitude of the rise in temperatures but the shape of the T vs time curve.

    Here is one blog that discusses this. I’ll look for a link to some refereed papers if anyone finds that necessary.

  13. So, CO2 in the ATMOSPHERE traps heat, and this warms the OCEANS but not the atmosphere?

    Are they serious?

    They aren’t even trying anymore.

    How about- their pet theory is actually wrong?

    1. I don’t think it is quite that easy to dismiss the theory. Ocean currents move a lot of heat around. We know that is the case.

      The theory does need a whole lot more evidence before being acceptable scientific fact, though.

    2. I’m a little puzzled myself, about how apparently the deep ocean currents can suck all (and I mean all) the increased heat out of the atmosphere, leaving none of it behind.

  14. Its almost like there is something other than CO2 in the atmosphere that affects long-term temperature trends. I mean, except that would be heresy to the Consensus of Settled Science.

    1. *** waves hand ***

      I know, I know! DARK CO2!

    2. That is indeed heresy. So now that the science is really superduper settled, no need for any further research or consideration. Let’s shut down these universities and state funded intellectuals and thank them for their noble service to cause of slavery ecology.

  15. 10 year excuse for things not working and they can continue to collect money.

    Then in 20 years, they can come up with another lame excuse to extend it another 10 years.

    1. August 21, 2034
      “The heat is being siphoned into underwater volcanoes. When they erupt, temperatures will rise dramatically. However, it will be masked by those pesky sulfates.”

  16. From the linked study:

    They conclude that the deep Atlantic and Southern Oceans, but not the Pacific, have absorbed the excess heat that would otherwise have fueled continued warming.

    So the Pacific Ocean is some extreme right-wing Kochtopus lackey that doesn’t accept immigrant heat, eh???

    1. Yeah, it’s interesting that the biggest ocean on the planet hasn’t absorbed this excess heat.

      Maybe the Garbage Patch is acting as a shield–time to fill the other oceans with Aquafina bottles and keep that heat in the atmosphere where it belongs!

      1. It means the researcher prefers to hang out in Portugal rather than Ecuador.

  17. But I thought we were doomed!

  18. Shameless fucking liars.

    Someone please kick them in the dick already.

  19. Amazingly enough the rate of warming at the beginning of the 20th century before humans were emitting much CO2 was virtually identical to the “catastrophic” warming of the end of the century. But it’s clearly all the fault of human emissions. So when the oscillations are in their warm phase, well, that’s clearly CAGW, and when they’re in their cold phase they’re perfectly cancelling CAGW. The climastrologists have divined the entrails and it is so.

  20. http://www.bloombergview.com/a…..-downsides

    (Megan McArdle) – way to go Suderman.

  21. In 50 years something bad is gonna happen unless you do what I tell ya.

  22. ATLANTA ?

    A warrant has been issued for a north Georgia woman who was arrested on new charges less than six months after a federal judge sentenced her to probation on federal explosives charges, court records show.

    U.S. District Judge Richard Story signed an order for a warrant for Celia Savage and a probation revocation hearing will likely be scheduled. The order was signed Aug. 14 and was filed with the court clerk Wednesday.

    A lawyer for Savage said in an email that he had no comment.

    Savage, 25, of Cornelia, originally was arrested in May 2012, after federal agents raided her home and found two pipe bombs and multiple guns. She pleaded guilty in July 2013 to making and possessing pipe bombs after reaching a plea agreement with prosecutors.

    http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/georg…..k_homepage

    Crazy but not bad looking.

    1. Why the fuck is simply making bombs a crime? There are lots of perfectly legitimate reasons to want to blow shit up.

      1. Unions. Blame them.

        When you could buy dynamite in the hardware store unions used them to blow up shit to influence elections, strikes etc.

    2. Why am I not surprised that you like a chick with a giant cold sore?
      http://www.ajc.com/photo/news/…..rge/pcG9k/

      1. Cuz despite all of shrike’s faults he is a man.

        Cold sore or not that women is kind to male hetero eyes.

        1. Corning|8.21.14 @ 6:49PM|#
          “Cuz despite all of shrike’s faults he is a man.”

          Naah. He’s a turd.

    3. Shrike what are you posting this shit when you know full well that Obama’s great pro-oil and gas energy policy is destroying the planet in 5 to 20 years?!?!?

  23. Tell us again about how the carbon tax is going to, uhh, eliminate deep ocean currents.

    1. That’s why we need a deep ocean current tax. Duh.

  24. Good sounds like a plan to me I like the sound of thatI this is gonna be good.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

  25. When things are going well, that just means the badness is building up, and the future will be EVEN WORSE THAN YOU THOUGHT.

  26. http://arstechnica.com/science…..000-years/

    Meanwhile, the models don’t agree with the temperature records. Clearly the records must be wrong, except of course when they are needed to show how catastrophic current warming is.

    This whole thing has gone past the point of being ridiculous.

    1. That is because it is a religion.

  27. This sinks more quickly and takes the heat down with it.

    Then why has that heat not been measured as it transitions from shallow water to deep water?

    Magic?

    1. Anything to keep the gravy train rolling.

  28. It’s like going to a place that didn’t have birth certificates until 40 years ago, and finding people claiming to be 160 years old!

    The precedent for this, of course, is The Condition of the Working Class in England by Friedrich Engels. Engels claimed, without evidence that large numbers of the “lower orders” lived to ages beyond 100 years.

  29. “We probably may have another 10 years, maybe shorter as global warming itself is melting more ice and ice could flood the North Atlantic, but historically we are in the middle of the cycle.”

    Sure we do. I am thinking ten years from now you will still be telling us we only have ten more years left.

    1. “As global warming itself is melting…”

      If there’s been a 17 year pause and all of the heat is being trapped in the deep ocean then can someone explain to me how the fuck GW is melting anything?

  30. Wait a minute. Weren’t we told just a month or two ago that it was already too late, that the Antarctic ice cap was collapsing and there is nothing we can do to stop it? We are already doomed, so what do they recommend we do?

    (As I recall what they described is the normal flow of ice over the continent, but hey, DOOM)

    1. Wasn’t there some French politician who gave a date where DOOM was certain yet was booked to climate change conference that occurred after said date?

  31. So has anyone bothered to look at some of the predictions 20 years ago and see how they played out and if they did not then was it because their warnings were heeded?

  32. If you like your hypothesis you can keep your hypothesis…

  33. “The researchers postulate that this phenomenon flips back and forth between hot and cold phases every 20 to 35 years. When it flips out of the current cold phase, average temperatures will begin to rise steeply.”

    Yet another narrative to explain a failed prediction. Wasn’t it normal practice to reject a hypothesis after it has been falsified? Given the fact that the AGW hypothesis has been shown to be wrong time after time again shouldn’t these guys be looking for other investigations that would generate research funds?

    1. To be fair, hypothesis can be modified or rejected.

  34. Have you measured the speed of the Gulf Stream? Do you have actual data to back your salinity-stream hypothesis or is it all conjecture?

    currents in the North Atlantic burying the extra heat in the deep ocean.

    Have you measured this data? No? Fuck off.

  35. Now a new study published in Science reports that the current “pause” in man-made global warming is the result of currents in the North Atlantic burying the extra heat in the deep ocean.

    I predicted that the future was going to be a ripping libertopia, sans regulation and progressive apparatchiks reduced to taking out my garbage.

    My trend towards my prediction is currently in a “pause”.

  36. That makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

  37. Play philosopher with me: What makes modeling, whether modeling economic outcomes or modeling atmospheric futures, scientific? History tells us that science in practice is more Kuhnian than Popperian–scientists tend to follow a conservative trend until it can’t be sustained by evidence anymore–and granted that Popper’s falsification test isn’t perfect (evolution isn’t easily falsified, though there would be some big-ass hints, like evidence that cavemen gnawed the meat off brontosaurus bones).

    But if empirical science relies on falsifiability and testability, how could any system that is wholly dependent on models with no hope of experimentation ever be considered science? We’ve seen this in economics and finance, where statisticians create elaborate mathematical models that fail to predict the future, at which point they tweak them and continue tweaking on and on. Same deal with climate science: they create models, the models project but don’t predict, and the projections are inaccurate.

    I come from a sabermetrics-friendly background, so I have some sympathy for the plight of modelmakers. But no sane person would call a statistical projection system for a baseball season or career “scientific”; it’s a very, very rough projection method that can’t begin to incorporate all of the inputs that make up a baseball season.

    1. By the same token, how could economic or climate projection systems–which are fundamentally what these models are, albeit there are massively more inputs to consider than the relatively discrete and repetitive action that takes place on a baseball diamond–be taken seriously by hard scientists?

      I’m going full Hayek: this obsession with statistical inputs and numbers that anticipate much but predict nothing STINKS of scientism and academic hubris. I know next to nothing about climate science, but I know a little bit more about the pretense of knowledge, and the more that I hear from econometricists and climate modelers, the more convinced I become that they’re putting their faith in pseudoscience dressed in empirical clothing and bien pensant thought that’s lackiong empirical falsifiability, which is the entire point of controlling variables experimentally.

      Now someone tell me why I’m wrong.

      1. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present ? and is gravely to be regarded.

        Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

        That’s the part of Eisenhower’s farewell speech (amongst several) that leftists gloss over because it doesn’t tickle their nub the way the MIC section does.

      2. You’re not.

      3. Take into account that until the 20th century “science” was called “natural philosophy”. Science wasn’t nearly so absolutist. Science worked as a PART of overall philosophy. It was one part of a man trying to make sense of the world around him. As an atheist, I certainly prefer a system of observation, reproduciblity, and rejection of superstition. But I STILL look at science as a part of overall philosophy (The Golden Rule isn’t a scientific concept).

        Unfortunately, as nation states rose, science as a tool to make sense of the world, became Science, a tool to bludgeon foes. It has become evermore absolutist. Even fifteen years ago, climate alarmists used conditional language a goodly portion of the time. But as Statism entered full-derp mode this last decade and a half, Science and its priests have abandoned the pretense of using such conditional language.

        So, in the end, a person should have respect for science, properly applied, but the first step toward “the dark side” is to believe that there is an absolutism within science. Real science, by my observation, creates a certain surety at one moment, but creates multiple new questions almost right away. It’s the curse that goes with all forms of philosophical thinking – the more you know, the less you know. Only a puritan would use Science to biasedly reach conclusions to use as weapons.

        1. Good points on the history of natural philosophy. I was watching a lecture about Mises/praxeology a couple of weeks ago where the speaker noted that the German word for science then did not offer a sharp distinction between the hard and social sciences. When those who use the old praxeological methodology talk about economics being a science, they mean that roughly in the same way that an anthropologist or historian would speak of their work as scientific: they use a particular methodology (in this case, informal logic based on undeniable priors) that permits them to investigate a topic in depth.

          The idea that any inductive methodology can unlock absolute truth–even an incredibly powerful methodology like modeling in physics, which uses induction to predict outcomes very accurately–is an odd idea that we generally don’t like to talk about. But the idea that a methodology that we know to be flawed should be employed to “answer” questions because we’ve grown dependent on the idea that reams of data represent “science” is much more dangerous.

          The first is mainly a matter of philosophical debate about induction and the nature of truth, but engineers and physicists do just fine ignoring that debate. The second is much more dangerous, as it gives us Hoover/FDR-style economics and now the trillions of dollars spent on what is looking more and more like a bigger fiscal rat hole than the Iraq War.

    2. No one ever said modeling is science. Models are simply a tool used by scientists. Simple observing isn’t science either, but observations are a tool used by scientists. Test tubes aren’t the only sphere of science. You can’t create a replica of the earth in a lab in order to conduct experiments on it.

      1. Way to say absolutely nothing of substance.

        1. Thanks! I know “substance” is a scarce commodity around here, so kudos to you for recognizing it.

  38. The IPCC report projects, “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016-2035 relative to 1986-2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3?C to 0.7?C.” This implies increases of 0.15?C to 0.35?C per decade.

    Ron, wouldn’t that imply 0.1?C to 0.2333?C per decade? 2016-2035 is three decades later than 1986-2005, so if the total change is 0.3?C to 0.7?C, the change per decade is a third of that.

  39. Your title to the article is way off, Ronald.

    Last I looked, the “deep ocean” is still part of the globe, and according to the study that is where the heat is being absorbed…in that part of the globe. One only has to look at temperature anomalies to see the “pause” that occurred for 30 years starting in 1945. And CO2 was still being added to the atmosphere back then as well.

    1. Which of course means we should promote a massive global social engineering scheme that will accomplish fuck-all to stop the warmapocalypse.

    2. You are a fucking retard.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.