Global Warming

Do Researchers Really Know Why Global Warming Is On Pause and When It Will End?

|

Best thermometer
Dreamstime

The science is settled. Maybe. Let's take look at some recent studies that aim to explain why projected increases in global average temperature have "paused" even as global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up siginficantly. It has generally been acknowledged that there has been an "hiatus' in warming that has lasted for the past 15 to 16 years so far. In August, Canadian statistician Ross McKitrick published a paper in the Open Journal of Statistics in which he lengthened the period of the pause:

In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH [University of Alabama in Huntsville satellite data] series and 26 years in the RSS [Remote Sensing Systems satellite data]series.

It's fair to say that this pause is something of an embarrassment to many in the climate research community, since their computer models failed to indicate that any such thing could happen. Spurred by the mismatch between computer projections and empirical data, lots of climate scientists have been trying to figure out why the average global temperature has not been increasing significantly.

For example, a 2010 study in Science attributed part of the temperature slowdown to increases decreases in stratospheric water vapor.

A 2011 article in Atmospheric Chemistry & Phyics suggested that a prolonged solar minimum combined with atmospheric aerosols left over from volcanic eruptions reduced the amount of heat reaching the surface of the planet.

But by far, the most popular explanation for why the atmosphere was not warming even as greenhouse gas concentrations were rising was that the excess heat is hiding in the oceans. Some researchers in March of this year argued in Nature Climate Change that the Pacific Ocean trade winds have speeded up thus pushing heat beneath the waves.

In August, other researchers countered in Science that the real reason the atmosphere is not warming is that changes in North Atlantic Ocean circulation are burying the extra warmth. The researchers reported that this process could go on for as long as another 20 years before the ocean begins releasing the stored heat, greatly boosting future rates of warming.

In late August, yet another set of researchers, in Nature Climate Change, suggested that natural variations in Pacific trade winds account for nearly half of the changes temperature seen over the past three decades. The bad news is that natural variation is now being overwhelmed by climate change caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Consequently, they predict that man-made warming will dominate future temperature trends soon and the hiatus will end.

Also in August, researchers associated with the Pacific trade winds theory report in Geophysical Research Letters the results of 31 climate models. They find that "under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption."

Just how long the temperature pause must last before it would falsify the more catastrophic versions of man-made climate change obviously remains an open question for many researchers. For the time being, most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends.

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.

189 responses to “Do Researchers Really Know Why Global Warming Is On Pause and When It Will End?

  1. No. No they don’t.

    Didn’t have to read any more than the headline to answer it. You’re welcome, Ronald!

    Next question, please!

  2. No. They don’t have a clue. And if they do they don’t want to admit it because it fucks with their narrative and their funding.

    1. You do a disservice to your readers to refer to them as scientists. They’re nothing but liberal hoaxers who are using this as an excuse to boss people around and take their stuff.

  3. No

  4. We all know it’s the Humounculi doing the heating, anyway.

  5. It’s the calm before the storm. This is a common phenomenon before any natural cataclysm. Given this well-established fact, the calm itself and the absence of current warming is proof that massive warming is just around the corner. Consensus is established, and it is irrational and, frankly, evil, to dispute my conclusion. Or, rather, science’s conclusion. Science has spoken, bitches.

    1. Science is a bitch, ain’t it?

      1. No. Science makes you its bitch. Science can do anything to you it wants, and you’ll keep coming back for more.

        1. In Russia, bitch sciences YOU!

          1. Deniers just want to deny science’s love. Yeah, sometimes science has to bitchslap its bitches, but that’s just because science has to be strong to protect those science loves.

            1. I’m sorry I made you mad, science! It’s all my fault! It won’t happen again!

              1. Get back in the house and make science dinner. Science will be back when science feels like it.

        2. Rice is science. We are Janay.

          1. +1 cross thread zing!

          2. *applause*

        3. Roger Goodell has suspended science for 2 games…

    2. The problem with all of these predictions is that is you add “Then again…maybe not.” to the end of every paragraph they are just as accurate.

      1. “if you add”

    3. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

      It’s a plot of the temperature history superimposed on the CO2 record. You no doubt will notice (if you can be bothered to look) the lack of true corollary between the two. (note: I picked this chart at random without knowledge of the position of the publishers about global warming.)

      What’s more, I do not know of any current climatological modelling system that models these scientific FACTS and I’ll bet you don’t either.

      For those of you who don’t understand how a scientific FACT is established let me elucidate to illuminate:

      A theory becomes a fact once the experiments or observations establishing a fact are repeatable by all observers. Since there are many different climate models giving a myriad of differing results, any predictions about the climate still remain theories.

      When the boffins come up with a model of the climate that accounts for all of the OBSERVED FACTS, I will be inclined to agree with one point of view over another.

      1. …the lack of true corollary between the two…Since there are many different climate models giving a myriad of differing results, any predictions about the climate still remain theories…A theory becomes a fact once the experiments or observations establishing a fact are repeatable by all observers.

        Correlation, not corollary. Hypotheses, not theories. And a theory cannot become a “fact.” But a hypothesis can become a theory.

        Let me guess that you don’t actually have a background in science.

  6. Consequently they predict that man-made warming will dominate future temperature trends soon and the hiatus will end.

    Sure it will Ron. Sure it will.

    Seriously, when it doesn’t will these guys admit they were wrong? I am not betting on it.

    1. “Soon” could be a loooooonnng time, John.

    2. I wish Ron would do us a service and expressly point out the nature of these various studies.

      Are they computer models only? Are they computer models making predictions that are confirmed in some empirical data?

      The big problem I have is that- to my knowledge- no one has completed even the barest survey of ocean temperatures to confirm whether or not these new studies are accurate.

      I’d give these people more credit if they said “Ooops, we didn’t account for the heating of the ocean. We took measurements and yup, there is the heat”. Instead it seems to me that they are basically saying “That heat went to that place where we can’t look…trust us”

      1. There’s the satellite record going back to 1979 for the ocean surface and there’s the more recent Argo floats that monitor thousands of points in the ocean to a depth of about 2000 meters. But there is no real good data on the deepest ocean.

    3. “Seriously, when it doesn’t will these guys admit they were wrong? I am not betting on it.”

      Never, global warming will be ‘proven’, as soon as we see any warming, and until then, why it’s just around the corner.

      This is a classically non-falsifiable stance, and it’s certainly not Science.

      1. And remember if it bolsters a view that AGW exists it’s climate, otherwise it’s just weather.

    4. Or rather, the global ecosystem’s premature descent into the next ice age has been triggered.

  7. Maybe Global Warming halted because Obama is president and it’ll start up again when a Republican is elected.

    1. +1 receding ocean

  8. Arrggh!

    The alarmist predictions *are* falsified!

    Where are the increasing methane and water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere that are supposed to amplify CO2’s warming effect?!?

    Absent rising concentrations of those additional greenhouse ‘gases’ there can be no catastrophic warming!!!!!!!!!!!

    It’s not a question of where the missing heat goes. It’s a question of how comprehensively we currently know how the various physical phenomena that take place in the atmosphere interact.

    Jesus titty-fucking Christ! There isn’t even a good theory to predict cloud formation rates!!!!!!!

    The missing heat is a fucking canard! The heat capacity of the oceans dwarfs that of the atmosphere. If heat is being abosrbed into the oceans for later release, then there is no point in any attempt to regulate CO2; next year a changing circulation pattern could release enough warm water to drive temps up 10 degrees. And we would be seeing many instances of that in the geologic record!!!!!

    My guess is that there is a feedback system that is poorly understood. Willis Eschenbach has a very interesting argument that thunderstorm formation acts like a giant relief valve dumping warm air into the stratosphere to be cooled and acting as a heat pump that reduces surface temps to approximately 30 degrees F. That would be an example of the sort of feedback system that is wholly absent from the alarmist hypotheses.

    1. I still would love for someone to put together a compendium of all the failed predictions of the Apocalyptics, similar to the Warm List.

    2. Phytoplankton.

      True Story.

      Sciare et al. found a direct link between sea surface temperature and atmospheric DMS over a large area in the southern Indian Ocean. They estimate that an increase in temperature would increase the atmosphere’s DMS concentration and have a negative feedback on the original warming.23

    3. My guess is that there is a feedback system that is poorly understood.

      *A*?

      As you point out cloud formation modelling is poor at best. The science on dimming is barely a decade old. We’ve only recently begun to think about, let alone measure, sea water acidification and our understanding of the biosphere at current atmospheric conditions is still advancing/developing. This ignores the 5 teraton gorilla that supposedly created this problem and could quite easily (accidentally even) diffuse it.

      Any given market contains fewer and simpler governing laws, potentials for interaction, and participating components than the global climate and our ability to predict markets with any certainty is pretty shaky; and when we get computers involved, we tend to just make predictions (and failures) faster.

      The thinking that we’re one lurking variable or unexplained correlation away from predicting global climate for the next 10-100 yrs. is absurd.

    1. The rate of change in the last 100 years is very much unprecedented compared to anything we’ve seen in the last 10,000 years. I’m fairly certain that what we’re experiencing is unusual.

      Science!

    2. We’ve lost about 75% of the Arctic’s sea ice in just 30 years. It doesn’t take a scientist to see this huge change in the climate system, and we know it’s mainly due to the extra heat trapped by increasing greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. Watching the Arctic warm so fast gives me the chills!

      Science! Neat. You just click on one of the cartoon characters for a new quote…

      1. Get it! Gives him the chills!!!

      2. “we know it’s mainly due to the extra heat trapped by increasing greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.”

        We KNOW it. Settled sciencec, byotch.

      3. 75%? Wouldn’t I be living underwater if that were even close to true?

        1. You’re already under water, ProL – YOU JUST DON’T KNOW IT YET

          *glares in kind of a creepy, B-movie-villiany way*

          1. I’m all for rising seas. If they rise just right, I’ll have Gulf-front property.

            1. I’m tellin’ ya, brother – mid-Michigan as New Miami – WITH CLEAN WATER, NOT THAT SALT SHIT – will be paradise. Come on!! Start warming!!!!

                1. When it comes, we’ll have you over for some Lake Perch, venison and Stroh’s.

        2. Sea ice is floating on water. So melting sea ice doesn’t raise the water level.

          So it’s Dryland for you!

          1. Well, then, why do I care at all?

            FREE ANTARCTICA!

            1. Because if all the land ice melts, you will be underwater — unless you live higher than Denver … or lower than Denver as long as it’s higher than 216 feet above sea level today.

              1. Well, then, I need a happy medium between that and the Gulf being about twenty feet from my pool cage.

        3. “75%? Wouldn’t I be living underwater if that were even close to true?”

          The Artic is made of floating ice. It could all melt and there would be no significant change on World sea levels.

          Sea levels will only rise if Ice trapped on land (mostly Antartica) melts. And Antartica has infamously failed to melt.

          Here’s the long term graph for Antartica:
          http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i….._hires.png

          The current Global Warming spin is that, though the Ice Extent remains roughly the same, a) it’s thinner and b) it will drastically decline any day now.

          I believed those predictions when they started making them in the 1990’s. Now 20 years later, I’m somewhat skeptical.

      4. “We’ve lost about 75% of the Arctic’s sea ice in just 30 years.”

        But we lost almost that much from 1920 to 1943–and it recovered.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-part-two/

  9. Also in August, researchers associated with the Pacific trade winds theory report in Geophysical Research Letters the results of 31 climate models find that “under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption.”

    And in 2005 they were saying that if the pause lasted more than 15 years, the models were wrong. Now that it has lasted more than that, they are saying the models are right and there is “little chance” the pause, which they said would never occur, will continue past 2020.

    Seriously Ron. You are not a stupid guy. How can you believe this bullshit?

    1. J: Let’s just say that I am always wary of confirmation bias, especially my own.

      1. Question. How long does global warming need to pause until there is an admission that it is, at the very least, probably not that big of a deal?

        1. b: That’s the trillion dollar (or more) question.

          1. How long does it have to pause before you move on to more interesting topics to write about?

            1. As soon as the reasonably fair minded authors (nods to Ron Bailey) stop writing about Global Warming, then we’ll live in a world where only the not so fair minded authors control the narrative. (I’m generally referring to the kind of author that would just tell one side of the story and hand wave away any criticisms from the other side).

              So please keep writing about Global warming Ron!

              1. + 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

          2. Well Ron,

            We can look at a few things.

            1. Ocean cycles and solar output can explain about 95% of the temperature record. Doesn’t leave much room for CO2 does it?

            2. The IR absorption bands in the lower atmosphere are saturated. In the upper atmosphere CO2 has a cooling effect.

            “CO2 causes global warming” is bunk.

      2. I am wary of that as well. But it is not confirmation bias to stop giving credence to people whose predictions continue to be proven wrong.

        They completely failed to anticipate the pause. When they first noticed the pause they said it wouldn’t last and if it did it meant the models are wrong. Now that it has lasted, they keep building increasingly elaborate and complex explanations to explain the pause they never predicted and thought wouldn’t last. At the same, the never will even consider the possibility that maybe their underlying theory is wrong.

        If that is not a case of confirmation bias, what is?

        Come on Ron. You know its bullshit.

        1. Even the term “Pause” is biased, cause it implicitly assumes that temps increase again in the future.

          We don’t “know” that.

          Oh, wait, these scientists “know” that. I forgot. They keep telling us.

          1. Almanian!|9.9.14 @ 3:32PM|#
            “Even the term “Pause” is biased, cause it implicitly assumes that temps increase again in the future.
            We don’t “know” that.”

            When I was in boot camp, a fellow paean looked in the end of a rifle barrel and said ‘Yep, it’s plugged the entire length!’
            It has stopped warming, that’s what we know. To state it is either permanent or temporary is to admit you are not dealing with science, but with bleef.

            1. Precisely. All we know is that it’s not warming now. Period.

        2. J: Climate is complicated. There is still some nontrivial chance that one or more of the proposed climate “epicycles” could turn out to be right.

          1. There is also a chance (read certainty) that there are no actual predictive models in climate science. Just cross sectional relationships.

          2. Sure there is Ron. Yes, there is always a chance they are right. But there is always a chance any theory is right. So what? Come back and talk to me when that happens. Until then, this is nothing but a mildly interesting debate in a largely unimportant field. And it is certainly not something that should affect national policy or anyone’s behavior. If you are willing to concede that point, I agree with you.

            1. There’s also a chance I could find a winning lottery ticked on the sidewalk. I’m not betting on it though.

          3. This strikes me as the craps equivalent of betting box cars on every roll.

          4. I think the fact that climate is complicated, most likely far more complicated that we understand, makes it likely that the proposals set forth are hogwash, which seems to keep being born out over and over again.

            Climate Science: 17th Century Aviation.

          5. Yeah about the same chance that the Keynesian Kool Aid drinkers will ever prove that their magic “multiplier effect” exists.

          6. “Climate is complicated. There is still some nontrivial chance that one or more of the proposed climate “epicycles” could turn out to be right.”

            That brings up an excellent point. Wasn’t if fashionable 10 to 15 years ago for the proponents of Anthro Global Warming theory to say there was no such thing as epicycles?

            The skeptics were claiming that the sharp warming in the 1990’s was largely cyclical and the AGWists were claiming that there was no cycle but a continuous increase in temperature. This was before it became clear that the temperature had reached a plateau.

        3. There is that whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof business. The burden is not on skeptics who wonder why everything is supposed to go to hell after centuries of relative stability. Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn’t science.

          1. But it is the name of the second episode of Arron Sorkin’s horribly written and entirely unwatchable “The West Wing!”

        4. But it is not confirmation bias to stop giving credence to people whose predictions continue to be proven wrong.

          Paul Ehrlich has gotten very wealthy doing just that.

          No one ever went broke…

              1. Same link! SAME LINK!!!

      3. I do appreciate that you try to tow the lion on this stuff, Ronald. You know what an unruly bunch we Reasonoids are.

        But – srsly – this has done on WAY too long to be taken seriously any more. ESPECIALLY by “scientists” I would think. Their models and predictions aren’t even close.

        In Stats and Research Methods, we always took that as a sign to….try another theory….

      4. That seems about right.

      5. Does confirmation bias exist in the cocktail party direction too?

  10. I’m not an alcoholic; I’m on a sober hiatus.

    1. I’ll drink to that!

      1. Schlafly Export IPA right now. Meh.

  11. “excess heat is hiding in the oceans.”

    What? That’s the excuse. The warming went to the beach for vacation?

    1. Apparently, oceans are like iPods, and were only invented 15 years ago. Before then, there was no possible way to know and account for this phenomenon, hence nobody predicted the pause.

  12. I REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS A PAUSE. You flat-earthers.

    1. Oh a skeptic eh?

  13. You dufus deniers just don’t get it! Human activity is harmful to the planet! It must be because it’s not natural! Only natural things are good, and industry is not natural! In a controlled setting CO2 traps heat! That’s a fact! And industry is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere! That means that the added CO2 must be trapping heat! It must! So if the atmospheric temperature isn’t rising, then that trapped heat must be being stored somewhere! Science, bitches!

    1. It’s probably just God’s wrath because we’ve sinned. Like the great flood or Sodom and Gomorrah.

      1. Not God! Mother Earth! We’ve sinned by burning carbon, the basic building block of life! Carbon is sin! Life is sin! We must stop our carbon sinning ways and save Mother Earth! Repent! Or she will kill us all!

        1. Mother Gaia taketh what Mother Gaia giveth. :'(

          1. The tide comes in, the tide goes out – you can’t explain that…

            1. You can’t not explain that!

              1. Hey – I just report what Bill O’Reilly says prophesies – I don’t judge

                1. Did you know he went to Harvard and has a Peabody Award?

                  1. Did you know he used to teach and was a cab driver for a time?

                    1. And he’s like 6’5″!

            2. you can’t explain that

              The number of people on Earth who can explain magnets probably numbers in the low 3 digits.

              1. It’s more than that. Less than 20 years ago, but still in the thousands.

  14. God I love Reason – just for shit like this.

    PILE IT ON, BROTHERS AND SISTERS (as if there were any libertarian women…).

    THESE CLIMATE DERP MOTHERFUCKERS DESERVE TO BE TAUNTED A SECOND TIME!

    1. Where’s Tony when you need him?

      1. I, personally, do not ever “need” Tony, thanks.

    2. I love the “its hiding in the oceans but will return” hypothesis. Jesus, why don’t they just say that Muhammad is going to emerge from the deep riding a velociraptor and punish mankind for his unclean ways?

      1. Yeah, the “ocean is hiding the heat” is extra-special retarded. So the rise in ocean temps is being recorded as we speak, and…wait, what? No? Huh.

        MAJICK!!

  15. “The researchers reported that this process could go on for as long as another 20 years before the ocean begins releasing the stored heat greatly boosting future rates of warming.”

    How is this possible? The reason ocean absorbs heat is because it is colder than air, so it tries to warm up. For ocean to release heat back, it needs to be warmer than air, no? So are they saying there will be a massive global cooling that will lower air temps below ocean temps? And even then, it will only stabilize climate, preventing extreme weather fluctuations.

  16. Noted climate scientician Jeffrey Sachs thinks there’s no pause and whatever shut up Matt Ridley! Kochto-Murdoch-pus!!!

    1. Sachs comes off as a pants-wetting jackanape in his exchange with Ridley.

      1. So, your average prog.

  17. That doesn’t look like consensus to me.

    1. There’s a consensus among the people who agree that there is man made climate change, and their opinion is the only one that matters.

  18. “Just how long the temperature pause must last before it would falsify the more catastrophic versions of man-made climate change obviously remains an open question for many researchers. For the time being most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends.”

    Godfuckin’dammit. Would someone please punch those people in the mouth?

    No, you can’t have your fuckin’ world communism. If you keep it up you are gonna get strung up.

    1. Dude, I’ll say it again – finally got into reloading over the weekend, basically because of people like the President of the US and these “consensus scientists”.

      I’m not goin’ on offense, but I WILL be prepared to play defense.

      Plus it’s pretty fun, and I always hating just walking away from all that brass all over the ground…:)

  19. So, we’re not all going to die? This is great news! What time do the parties and parades start?

    We can now take all the billions and billions of dollars of resources that were plowed into this non-event and put it towards more productive means! We’ll all be better off!

    How could anyone not welcome this fantastic news?

    1. You know, what they should’ve done was make the big deal about asteroids and comets coming to kill us, saying that we had to drop everything and give up our money and our freedom to build a huge permanent presence throughout the solar system to protect us. At least there would’ve been some truth to that–asteroids and comets have clobbered the Earth and will continue to do so.

      1. I pity the fool asteroid who messes with Momma Earth.

        1. Mother Gaia’s baby daddy has a mohawk and wears lotsa jewelry.

          Who knew?

        2. While you’re right–the asteroid would never survive the encounter–those of us living on Gaea are somewhat at risk.

          1. Best that we start to prepare now, then.

            I recall hearing something about having the time to breed prodigiously with all that free time in the mine shafts.

            1. During mandatory copulation breaks from mandatory labor, yes.

              1. I suggest a female to male ratio of 10-1.

                I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics, which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

                1. I suddenly understand the AGW movement.

                2. Mein F?hrer! I can VALK!

  20. I want to know how heat “hides” in the ocean. If I recall, there’s this sciency thing called a thermometer, and you can use it to determine the temperature of things like water. Am I to understand that the climate experts have no records of deep ocean temperatures and those records aren’t part of their models?

    1. “Ther…ther…mometer…Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?”

    2. No one has a fucking clue about the truly deep oceans.

    3. Of course they do…here is the record of global ocean heat content since the 1950s. The first graph on the page is to a depth of 700 meters, the second to a depth of 2000 meters.

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

      Note the ocean is absorbing more and more heat.

      1. Note the ocean is absorbing more and more heat.

        Which is another way of saying “the earth has a high specific heat”.

      2. I’d like to know the error bars for that data for the 1960s and 1970s. Reading over the paper that this data comes from (it’s linked on the page) I can’t find where they say how the data from back then was collected. It all looks like estimates based on something else with some added interpolation and extrapolation.

      3. It would be nice if someone would convert that “scary” graph into temperature change. Oh, look, someone did:

        In the last 45 years, the average temperature of that layer of the ocean increased by 0.065 Celsius degrees only! That would give you 0.14 ?C per century, about 20 times smaller temperature difference than the changes of the global mean temperature predicted for the surface.

        1. I’m glad you linked to that. The very first thing that occurred to me when looking at the scale and seeing Heat Content measured in Joules instead of Celsius was that the number after doing the conversion must be remarkably small.

          Do you ever recall a proponent of AGW using Joules as the unit in talking about global warming?

        2. That’s not the point…the point is the rate of increase, along with the point that the ocean is acidifying at a rate not seen for millions of years…which comes from the CO2, just like the heat does. Regardless of measuring in C, or joules, or anything else, CO2 is being added to the oceans, its temperature is rising, and it is becoming more acid…much to the harm of marine life.

          1. Jackand Ace|9.9.14 @ 8:16PM|#
            …”much to the harm of marine life. (as it now exists)”

            Ya know, it turns out the polar bears are doing OK, but even when the propagandists were claiming otherwise, I wondered why we should favor polar bears over harp seals.
            Tell us, Jack; what should the temperatures be? What species should exist (since some are going extinct all the time)?
            Yes, we know you’re a conceited lefty twit who has all the answers so please inform the philistines here!

          2. Oh, and:
            Jackand Ace|9.9.14 @ 8:16PM|#
            “That’s not the point.”…

            It was a couple of posts ago; time to push those goal posts!

  21. In what year was the global average temperature ideal – 2012, 1815, 1731? How do we know it? In what ever year that was, was there any absence of extreme weather phenomenon such as droughts, hurricanes, hail storms, floods anywhere on earth?

    1. I’d say about 70, with light rainfall only during the week at say 3:00 p.m., local time.

  22. “It’s fair to say that this pause is something of an embarrassment to many in the climate research community, since their computer models failed to indicate that any such thing could happen. Spurred by the mismatch between computer projections and empirical data, lots of climate scientists have been trying to figure out why the average global temperature has not been increasing significantly”

    Yeah – and all of their explanations amount to nothing more than fancy versions of the old “the dog ate my homwork” excuse.

    1. You know, it could be that aliens are stealing our heat. No, hold on, just think for a moment. Aliens from some cold place, like, I dunno, Pluto, who need heat. So they come to the Earth to steal ours. Little do they know that we have excess to burn.

      The good news for us is that we could avoid war by simply selling the heat to the peoples of the outer solar system.

      1. Maybe the Matrix is using our heat to power itself.

        1. If you mean global heat, sure, but I don’t think people as batteries makes any effing sense.

  23. In s related story, the World Meteorological Organization just released data that we hit new highs in both CO2 and methane. And interestingly enough, to couple with the idea that the ocean is absorbing much of it, the acidification of the oceans is at a pace not seen in 300M years.

    “The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, based on proxy-data from paleo archives. In the future, acidification will continue to accelerate at least until mid-century, based on projections from Earth system models.”

    But who cares, its just the ocean.

      1. Any credentials of those issuing that statement need to be revoked immediately.

        http://rsta.royalsocietypublis…..6.abstract

        However, new pCO2 estimates for the Middle Miocene are notably higher than published records, with average pCO2 concentrations in the range of 400?500?ppm.

        And in the last 300MM years the levels have been multiples of what they are now.

        The atmosphere and ocean exist in equilibrium. Higher pCO2 means more CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Since the Earth had substantially higher levels of CO2 in the past, its oceans were considerably more acidic than they are today. And all of this neglects the massive buffering available in the oceans themselves. I’m no chemist, but it’s clear that the WMO is little more than a bunch of weather girls flailing at a greenscreen.

        1. In the first place, you are citing a study about atmospheric CO2 and extending it to CO2 in the oceans. But OK, fair enough.

          Re-read what WMO said…the RATE of acidity in the oceans in unprecedented. RATE. And that has been born out by study after study.

          http://www.theguardian.com/env…..e-poertner

          That one says the rate has NEVER occurred like it is now.

    1. All proxy data gives you an average over relatively long timescales. They aren’t suited to showing rapid changes one way or another. You’ll have one data point every decade, century, etc. I have no idea what how far apart the data points are for proxies dating back 300 million years.

      1. That is meaningless. Its how we make comparisons to years when there were not any “thermometers.”

        1. That is meaningless. Its how we make comparisons to years when there were not any “thermometers.”

          No it is not meaningless. Claude Shannon proved mathematically that the highest frequency in sampled data is one half the sample rate. This is commonly called the Nyquist frequency. The rate of change in any data set is limited by the highest possible frequency. To make a valid comparison as it relates to rate of change all the data must have the same sample rate.

          1. “To make a valid comparison as it relates to rate of change all the data must have the same sample rate.”

            Ha and HA! You expect data that stand up to scrutiny, rather than the noise bought in bushels by Jack, Tony and the other assorted lefties who troll here.
            Hey, it’s ORGANIC garbage! They’re buying! With your money…

          2. Highest reconstructable frequency. Anything above that aliases and you can’t tell what it is, but I’m being pedantic and your point is correct.

    2. “But who cares, its just the ocean.”

      Yep, the world ocean warmed around 0.06 Degrees Celsius over the last 50 years. Assuming, statistical noise doesn’t make that number meaningless of course. So it’s not really a big deal is it?

      1. Oh, its a HUGE deal. I live in an area where lobster fishing used to be a mainstay…not anymore…hardly any are caught now. And its because the ocean has warmed.

        1. Or because it was over-fished until the fishery was depleted past a safe point.

          1. “Over-fishing, they say, is not the problem. WARMER WATERS, pesticides and predators are to blame.”

            “What’s working against fisheries in Long Island Sound appears to be climate change…”

            http://cveditorials.com/LI/201…..-lobsters/

          2. Tell you what, forget about where I live. Lets go across the country to the other side:

            “A new study from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says that ocean acidification has put Alaskan fishery harvests at great risk.”

            http://www.planetexperts.com/o…..s-economy/

        2. Jackand Ace|9.9.14 @ 8:07PM|#
          …”And its because the ocean has warmed.”

          You’re full of shit.

          1. Jack you just lost any small amount of credibility you had left.

        3. And we’ve been having a lobster glut over here (New England) for the last three years. Seems like every store is offering lobster rolls. Practically can’t give the things away.

          But I’m sure there is a perfectly rational sounding reason why the warming of your ocean is cooling ours. Or maybe our lobsters like it warmer. Yeah that’s probably it.

    3. Months ago, one of the commenters here (not me and I forgot who) predicted that, as it was becoming very obvious that the predicted warming wasn’t happening, the thermal bogeyman would transform himself to ocean acidification.

      And right on cue….

      1. Months ago? Try keeping up…ocean acidification has been a problem for years.

        Here, National Geographic. And the date? 2011. And your worried about a guy who “predicted” it months ago. He’s years late.

        1. Jack,

          You are technically correct. It’s been a few years vs a few months since ocean acidification started to become the new boogie man de jure.

          But you are missing the forest when you are point at the bark on a particular tree.

          We’ve been down this road for centuries. At least since Malthus, we’ve been hearing claims that population and industrialization will doom us. And every single time they’ve been wrong.

          It’s certainly true that this time (ocean acidification) could be the one true civilization ending disaster, but judging by past experience it’s just another boogie man.

      2. http://ngm.nationalgeographic……lbert-text

        Here’s the link. But its old. 3 years old.

        1. More importantly, like most of the crap you post, it is well protected by weasel-words.
          ‘By 2050 something could happen’. Yep, so lets just turn over the economy to econ-imbeciles like Jack right now!

        2. *Yawn* Learn what buffering is and then get back to us.

          1. Jack is not nearly the well-prepared liar that weapon is, but even *he* finally bailed after being called on EVERY lie.

          2. “Like the Richter scale, the pH scale is logarithmic, so even small numerical changes represent large effects. A pH drop of 0.1 means the water has become 30 percent more acidic. If present trends continue, surface pH will drop to around 7.8 by 2100. At that point the water will be 150 percent more acidic than it was in 1800.”

            From the article posted 3 years ago.

    4. appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years

      Those who believe this garbage appear to have their IQ’s hiding….in my ass.

      What an absolutely absurd claim. They know the “rate of oceanic acidification” for the past 300M years? Of course they do not.

        1. OH! OH! A Guardian cite!
          A fucking Guardian cite!
          Jack, get lost.

  24. It does not look like a pause to me. Just looks like 1998 was an outlier.

    1. Rate of increase is much slower. To the point where its not statistically significant.

    2. 1998 was the “el nino of the century.”

  25. This is what makes pseudo-science so much fun. Just cherry pick some “facts” and supply some narrative to connect them together. Then when what you say doesn’t pan out, add in some new facts and change the narrative. You never ever have to admit to can’t find your ass with both hands.

  26. Don’t feed the morons Ron.

    1. Why do you deny the data, Tony?

    2. Tony|9.9.14 @ 11:21PM|#
      “Don’t feed the morons Ron.”

      Here to eat, moron?
      I try to keep up; please tell us about the exploding population and how we’re all gonna starve!
      I love that story!

      1. All 7 billion of the earth’s people could live in the state of Texas, and as family of 4 would have a tenth of an acre to live on, which is about 4 times what the NIGHTTIME population of NYC survives in.
        That is real science, numbers. Numbers never lie.

    3. Tony Turd Burglar.

  27. Derp, derp derp. The only thing that we really know at this point is that the levels of atmospheric CO2 are likely higher than any known point in recent history and also higher than data from millions of years of ice core data. I think everyone would agree that there is the potential for undesirable consequences. I also think anybody with half a brain will realize that there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the future climate and most of the models have failed to predict/model actual atmospheric temperature. At this point, the only discussion worth having is what can be done that wouldn’t disrupt society/economics excessively. Nuclear and hydrodynamic power are viable solutions that would work today. Are people willing to trade fossil fuels for nuclear power? Renewable energy is also making advances but probably can’t sustain the demands of modern society. What about encouraging people not to breed? How about incentivizing non-breeders so that there are fewer mouth breathers on the planet? These are the only discussions I’m interested at this point…everything else is a pissing match. The earth will either get colder or warmer and the universe won’t give a shit.

    1. “What about encouraging people not to breed? How about incentivizing non-breeders so that there are fewer mouth breathers on the planet? These are the only discussions I’m interested at this point.”

      So you prefer less prosperity? Why is that?
      Do you like people to die earlier? Starve? What sort of nastiness do you favor for people?
      Are you willing to volunteer?

    2. Let’s discuss eliminating people who begin a paragraph with “derp derp derp”

    3. “we really know at this point is that the levels of atmospheric CO2 are likely higher than any known point in recent history and also higher than data from millions of years of ice core data.”

      Actually, if you bothered to look backwards, you’d realize that CO2 was actually far, far higher in the past to the tune of about 1000ppm more. We’re actually far closer to the absolute minimum of CO2 required to keep life going than we are to prehistoric concentrations.

  28. Kennedy . although Denise `s st0rry is cool, on wednesday I got Renault 5 after having made $6744 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten k this past month . with-out any question its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and practically straight away earned minimum $79, per hour . visit this page === http://www.jobsfish.com

  29. My first question is always
    “So, who caused all the warming during the time of the dinosaurs?”

  30. The bad news is that natural variation is now being overwhelmed by climate change caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Consequently, they predict that man-made warming will dominate future temperature trends soon and the hiatus will end.

    End soon? Really?

    Get ready for global cooling.

  31. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  32. In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco continues his hiatus as Spain’s dictator.

  33. They just need more money for a better thermometer. The old thermometers wouldn’t let them add in assumptions about what the temperature should be, so naturally, we as a nation need to give the IPCC a trillion dollars so they can build a programmable thermometer, one that hooks up to the climate models!

  34. Duh, the reason is that their pet theory is WRONG. Increased CO2 concentrations were not the cause of the 1970-1995 warming period. (which followed the 1940-1970 COOLING period…) All you have to do is compare the KNOWN (it can be trivially measured in a test tube) marginal radiative forcing of the observed increased CO2 level to the observed warming. Too much warming for the level of CO2, so the cause of the warming was something other than CO2. QED.

    What was behind it? Sun got a little warmer. It does that. Nothing we can do about it. How do we know? Mars is warmer too. Also, the fact that the oceans are warmer but the atmosphere is not indicates that it is not an atmospheric effect.

    It is really pretty simple and obvious… if you don’t have you head up your ass.

  35. I find it amusing that they claim water vapor cooled the planet, or prohibited more warming, when water vapor itself is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than the one’s they want to regulate. Specifically, CO2.

    Very amusing indeed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.