Hooray! Warmists Find Excuse #8 For Pause

They can’t help themselves. Interestingly, the excuses include natural forces for the pause, but these same Warmists won’t acknowledge natural forces for the warming, except perhaps for a tiny, tiny bit

(The Hockey Schtick) A paper published today in Nature Climate Change adds the eighth excuse for the ‘pause’ in global warming: strengthened Pacific trade winds, which according to the authors, were “not captured [simulated] by climate models.” On the basis of those same highly-flawed climate models, the authors predict rapid global warming will resume in a decade or so when those trade winds abate.

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor

Here’s that paper

Trade winds may be a significant cause of the so called global warming pause, according to new research.

An article published online today in Nature Climate Change investigates how strengthened Pacific trade winds can account for 0.1C- 0.2C of cooling through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake – this is enough to account for much of the temperature slowdown in the so called global warming pause.

Global average surface temperatures rose sharply during the second half of the 20th century before leveling off since the late 1990s despite a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists have yet to fully explain the recent slowdown in the rise of air temperatures attributed to the so called global warming pause that, on at least one measure, has lasted for over 17 years.

Much of what they are positioning is that the warming was the fault of Mankind, but the pause was nature. And they say that warming, per all their flawed computer models, will soon come back in force. Cult.

Anthony Watts notes that we were told something completely different about the trade winds a few years ago.

Jo Nova has the trade winds issue in a nutshell (make sure to read the whole post)

1.  It is almost as if climate modelers finally discover the PDO cycle. Akasofu (and many many other skeptics) have been pointing out the obvious, and making predictions on it, for years.

2.  Perhaps the trade-winds are affecting the climate. But what drives the trade-winds? The models can’t predict the trade-winds until they understand what drives them. If it turns out to be cloud cover changes, or lunar orbits, or solar magnetic effects, cosmic ray effects, or all of the above… that means there is another whole factor or lots of them that the models did not include. Every warming factor added to the models reduces the power of CO2 as a driver.

3. Internal Variability means “we have no idea what is going on”.

But, the cult is uber-thrilled over the study. Warmist sites like Grist and Climate Progress have jumped all over it. They have no idea what is going on, but they’ll still make dire predictions for the far future. It’s all about keeping the money train and cult going. And the hardcore progressive politics.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

11 Comments

Comment by Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2014-02-11 12:06:24

the leftists and enviroweenies are so easy to trick. First evidence is their incessant need to blame CO2 for everything that happens on earth. Second, is their instant and blind loyalty to any pro-global warming story that comes out. Despite the fact that it makes no lick of sense and is not based on any science or scientific theory.

If they were capable of thought, for even a few seconds, they’d see that this story actually makes many of the cases that Realists have been making for last decade or so.

Models are not complete. Models can not model atmospheric cycles. Modelers themselves don’t know what they missed or don’t know. Finally acknowledges the “pause” and tries at least to explain it. Finally acknowledges the trade winds, erroneously though. Completely flips on its head the theories of fluid and thermal dynamics.

So, yeah, not based on science at all.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-11 14:06:58

What you carboweenies and coolists call excuses we climate realists call research. Based on universal physics, chemistry and a piece of centuries old technology called the thermometer, it’s clear the Earth continues to warm. Modern technology, called satellites, have high-tech thermometers that tell us that less heat is escaping the Earth than before (at least for the last 35 years).

The reason the Earth continues to warm is because of increased atmospheric CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels. It’s been known for a century that CO2 absorbs the radiation released from the Earth. This increased heat is distributed between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans. If you look at the global average surface temperature record for the last hundred years you see the impacts of natural processes – La Nina cool periods, El Nino warm periods, Mt. Pinatubo cooling – it’s known that natural phenomena are involved and are superimposed on the inexorable heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The carboweenie/coolist cult is only concerned about near-term political impacts, not science. Your cult’s high priests (Hockey Schtick, WUWT, Morano etc) assail the science as a tactic.

 
Comment by Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2014-02-11 14:28:57

less heat is escaping the Earth than before

If you believe that you are far from reality as fairy-farting dancing midget unicorns can get.

and, wth is a coolist?

This increased heat is distributed between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans.

yet isn’t shown up in even the adjusted data. Let alone satellite data (that also has a slight adjustment to it).

If you look at the global average surface temperature record for the last hundred years you see the impacts of natural processes

Very good. You are learning. He can be taught. Good on you. Welcome back to reality.

it’s known that natural phenomena are involved and are superimposed on the inexorable heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Please decipher this gobbly-gook. “inexorable heating”? Does that mean it is unstoppable? that’s what my dictionary states it means. If so, then why are we trying to stop the inexorable natural processes??

And please define and describe the “enhanced greenhouse effect”. Please define and describe how it is different from the normal greenhouse effect that Earth, as well as many other planets that have atmospheres.

The carboweenie/coolist cult is only concerned about near-term political impacts, not science.

it is your side that squeals like little girls at a Bieber concert when non-science is rolled out to explain natural processes. Whenever real science is used to show how ludicrous it is, you start whining about non-existent runaway “enhanced” greenhouse effects.

We bring science, you bring unreality.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-11 17:20:56

g,

More CO2 in the atmosphere results in more warming, hence enhanced greenhouse. This is basic and has been understood for a century, yet you deny it.

How do you explain the Earth’s continued warming if not from less heat escaping the Earth? In addition, it’s been measured. Do you have a valid criticism to debunk the data that the uppermost atmosphere is cooling? You did not make an argument, you just denied the evidence.

You think the Earth warms, but that the atmosphere, land and oceans do not? How do you deny that??

I’ve never denied the involvement of natural processes in our climate, have I? The warming we are seeing now is from the greenhouse effect from the added CO2 we’re dumping into the atmosphere. Where do you think this CO2 is coming from?

And don’t flatter yourself. All I have learned here is that there exists a tiny cesspool of hateful, science-denying, white separatist, carboweenies. Why do you deny the role of greenhouse gases in the current warming?

You claim your stance is base on science, yet you never make a scientific argument. You only deny facts.

Without a change in our production and dumping of CO2 pollution into the atmosphere, global warming is inexorable. Although the greenhouse effect is all natural, the source for the added CO2 is human activity – the burning fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil for generating energy.

Coolists are the opposite of warmists, silly.

A carboweenie is a coolist that squeals like a schoolgirl any time their allegiance to fossil fuels is criticized.

 
Comment by jl
2014-02-11 20:06:40

“More CO2 results in more warming.” Alas, that’s not happening, now is it? “You think the earth warms, but the oceans atmosphere and land do not? Funny, I thought the land and the oceans were part of the earth. Anyway, the theory of GW stated that the increase of greenhouse gasses (CO2) would cause a warming of the atmosphere. That isn’t happening. And even if it is, or if the oceans are eating the heat, still doesn’t prove the cause is CO2. here’s much more that we don’t know than do know about climate, unless you’re an astrologer. “Less heat is escaping than before( at least 35 years).” Wow- 35 years out of 4 billion. Where did you get such a large data sample? And you wonder why you look like fools.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-11 23:27:35

j,

The atmosphere continues to warm, just not as fast as before. Yep, still warming. How do the coolists transmogrify warming into not warming?

Let’s see, CO2 is increasing steadily, Earth warming, and the amount of heat leaving the Earth decreasing. Just another piece of that overwhelming evidence in support of AGW you hear so much about.

I realize you don’t like to talk about science or perhaps feel unqualified, but how do you explain the slowed loss of heat from the Earth? One obvious explanation would be that the Earth is releasing less heat, but that is inconsistent with the temperature record which shows warming. Since the sun is cooling a little (since the 50s), maybe that accounts for the cooling upper atmosphere, but then why is the lower atmosphere warming?

Being called a fool by a carboweenie is hardly hurtful. You usually call me much worse.

 
Comment by Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2014-02-12 09:10:13

J,
Everything you’ve said is complete and utter rubbish. Even a 2nd grader knows such things aren’t real just because you say they are.

Every child knows that the greenhouse effect on earth is not caused by CO2. Everyone learned adult knows that CO2 has a logarithmic warming curve such that most of any warming we would get from additional CO2 has already been applied. EVERY learned adult knows that there are seasonal and cyclical changes in our climate, our oceans, and our galactic space around us. Those do more to change our ecosystem of Earth than your exhalation.

the Earth is releasing less heat

So, a person who berates others for their “magical” beliefs now has their own magical belief that a sentient earth chooses when and how much heat to release?

Since the sun is cooling a little (since the 50s), maybe that accounts for the cooling upper atmosphere, but then why is the lower atmosphere warming?

You really are off your rocker. First you lambast anyone who claims a natural reason for heating and cooling of our atmosphere, and here you claim a cooling sun for WHY your theories are not holding up. yet, your guess is wrong again.
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
It has only been since the 90′s that our sun has been going in to a quieter pattern. Which, based upon historical data and temperature records, holds a greater correlation to temperature swings than does CO2 levels.
And, “lower atmosphere is warming”?

 
Comment by david7134
2014-02-12 12:07:14

Jeff,
Were is all this CO2? You want to discuss the science, but when asked questions you have no response. Now, how does the CO2 get to the upper atmosphere? How come the increasing acidity of the ocean can not be blamed on CO2? Why don’t we have an increase of CO2 at lower elevations? Now, discuss the “science”, not your constant blathering.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2014-02-12 12:31:38

Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs: Every child knows that the greenhouse effect on earth is not caused by CO2.

Um, no. The greenhouse effect is not something that children would know much about. There are a number of gases involved with the greenhouse effect, including water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide represents about a fourth of the greenhouse effect. See Kiehl & Trenberth, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1997.

Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs: Everyone learned adult knows that CO2 has a logarithmic warming curve such that most of any warming we would get from additional CO2 has already been applied.

Most, but not all. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a direct increase of about 1°C.

Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs: So, a person who berates others for their “magical” beliefs now has their own magical belief that a sentient earth chooses when and how much heat to release?

It’s not magic or sentience, just basic physics.

david7134: Were is all this CO2?

In the atmosphere and in the hydrosphere.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2014-02-12 12:40:43

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor

Climate science is hard.

1) Low solar activity accounts for only a portion of the slowdown in warming
2) Ocean warming is observed
3) Particulates accounts for only a portion of the slowdown in warming
4) Reductions in ozone account for only a portion of the slowdown in warming
5) Adjustments to the data account for only a portion of the slowdown in warming
6) Volcanic activity accounts for only a portion of the slowdown in warming
7) Reduction in stratospheric water vapor accounts for only a portion of the slowdown in warming
8) Supported by the evidence

2) and 8) are the same.

 
Comment by Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2014-02-12 12:51:31

WTH you on about? please make some sense.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9008 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE