Warmists are finally acknowledging what Skeptics have known: there has been no statistically significant warming in over 17 years, closing in on 18 years. They’ve trotted out lots of excuses: this one is a conglomeration of several, with a twist that makes it #11 (doing this from my Droid, so I can’t ‘shop it at the moment) (via Climate Depot)
(UK Guardian) Has global warming come to a halt? For the last decade or so the average global surface temperature has stabilising at around 0.5°C above the long-term average. Can we all relax and assume global warming isn’t going to be so bad after all?
Â
Unfortunately not. Instead we appear to be measuring the wrong thing. Doug McNeall and Matthew Palmer, both from the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, have analysed climate simulations (WT: and we all know how well the simulations have worked so far) and shown that both ocean heat content and net radiation (at the top of the atmosphere) continue to rise, while surface temperature goes in fits and starts. “In my view net radiation is the most fundamental measure of global warming since it directly represents the accumulation of excess solar energy in the Earth system,†says Palmer, whose findings are published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
Â
So why aren’t surface temperatures keeping pace with ocean heat content and net radiation? The answer, according to a recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change, may be some unusually strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean, which have buried the surface heat deep underwater, reducing the amount of heat flowing back into the atmosphere. Once the trade winds relax again that heat will likely be released and surface temperatures will bounce up again. In the meantime we’d be wise to keep a closer eye on ocean heat content (using the Argo array of ocean profiling floats) and net radiation (using satellites). Like it or not Earth’s future is looking hot.
So, don’t look at the surface temps where life lives, where Warmists have been telling us it’s getting super duper hot, look at it where it’s magically disappearing. But will one day return with a vengeance in The Future. I can’t imagine why Warmists get upset when we say “climate change” is a cult.
You are correct. Surface warming DOES matter. If the oceans could absorb all the heat with no effect on marine life (and hence humans) and NEVER serve as a reservoir to re-heat the atmosphere there would be little problem. Unfortunately for us humans, physics doesn’t work that way. Where do you think the heat from an El Nino comes from? It’s a redistribution of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. There’s a certain amount of solar energy bombarding the Earth constantly – and there’s more coming in than going out. Part of that energy is heating up the surface atmosphere, and some of that surface heat is being swallowed up by the oceans (causing measurable warming). It makes sense if you bother to think about it.
No, they sound like idiots when I think about it. The “science is settled”, but don’t worry, we’re always trying to come up with new ways to make our theory work.
Theories don’t “work”. Theories are supported or not by data. The data to date overwhelmingly support the theory of AGW. That’s not to say that data to refute the theory of AGW won’t be discovered.
The Earth’s surface and oceans are warming. Some days Teach understands this, some days he doesn’t, depending on the point he feels he needs to make.
Do you accept the theory of gravity? Can you explain why an apple falls to the ground? Can anyone?
Ah yes…. another distraction.
But hey, I’ll play along.
The problem is Jeffery that if you want to compare gravity to AGW you have to do it on many levels. For example, with gravity when an apple is released and gains height, real scientists say “there’s something wrong here as our experiment doesn’t fit the theory.”
Warmists, on the other hand, look around and say “our experiment doesn’t fit the data, but the theory is still right!”
When an apple doesn’t match predicted speeds and distances as it is dropped, real scientists say “there might be other factors affecting this apple.”
Warmists, on the other hand, say silly things like “unless you can tell us what is causing the earth to not perform the way we predicted, the theory must be true!”
When scientists plug in numbers in a scientific model for the fall of the apple and experimentation and data derived from the experiment doesn’t match the model, real scientists look at the model.
When warmists are faced with a models that don’t work and aren’t backed by data and experimentation, they say “nothing to see here…. move along!”
If you want to go with the idea that calling something a theory means that it is a scientific fact, you first have to understand the idea of a “theory,” how it is proven and how it is tested.
AGW fails that basic scientific foundation.
Computer models are not data. The hypothesis was that the warming since (insert date here for whatever argument Warmists are making) was mostly/solely caused by Mankind. The actual real world data doesn’t support the hypothesis, therefore it is not a theory, per the scientific model.
You can’t simply deem that your hypothesis is True. You must prove it.
You’re wrong. The theory of AGW predicts that as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increase, the temperature of the Earth’s surface and oceans will increase. Are you now denying that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases seen in the last century came from man’s burning of fossil fuels?
“The actual real world data doesn’t support the hypothesis (sic)…”
What real world data are you talking about?
I’ve asked before, but you fossil fools refuse to answer: What evidence would ever convince you that the Earth is now warming because of CO2 added to the atmosphere by man? The answer, of course, is none.
The historical record of global temperatures higher than (medieval warm period) and lower than (little ice age) current numbers. There are more than those two but it’s a start. And they happened before the Industrial Age, so good luck blaming the changed on CO2. That’s not to mention the fact that -despite notable CO2 increases- there has been no statistically significant increases in 17 years. Facts right there, chuckles.
That hand-waving crap Teach linked to is just that; a pathetic use of (poor) simulations to explain away NO WARMING FOR 17 YEARS. If their models were worth a damn they would have been able to predict & explain recent events.
Casey,
Thanks for trying. Other major changes in global average surface temperature were caused by other physical processes than man’s adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The current rapid warming IS because of the rapid increase in greenhouse gases.
People have answered, but you have failed to read their answers.
Ostriches such as yourself do not a debate make.
But a question that you have failed to answer is that “absent of CO2 in the atmosphere, what would the temperatures be?”
That’s the problem that you and people of your ilk have. You say the earth is warning due to CO2 but you cannot give any definitive numbers because you don’t know and or don’t understand all the interactions between different things that affect temperatures. The proof of that is that the models which predict warming do not work. They are in error. They are wrong.
As I said earlier, when scientific models don’t predict the actual results, people who really understand the scientific process seek to figure out why. Warmists, on the other hand, don’t know and don’t care.
Without models, without data and without temperature deltas the theory falls like house of cards.
But you won’t see that because it is your cult.
Warmists, on the other hand, look around and say “our experiment doesn’t fit the data, but the theory is still right!â€
I would like to add; “Or they change the data to fit their models.”
There are many observations that appear to contradict the theory of gravity. Birds, airplanes, hot air balloons, boats – yet scientists didn’t change the theory but explained how these phenomena were consistent with it.
The theory of AGW predicts that as greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere the Earth will retain more and more of the Sun’s radiant energy. Please share the evidence you have that refutes this. Thanks.
You should have stopped when you were simply making a fool of yourself instead of really making a fool of yourself in demonstrating you have no clue about the example you yourself gave.
Yet facing the fact that the predictions and data don’t match the theory of AGW, so called “scientists” don’t revisit the issue and don’t question the theory.
Once again, Warmists are not dealing in science.
We already did. In this thread in fact.
Aren’t you tired of pulling sand out of your ears, ostrich?
Jeffy:
Funny thing is, the point of this post, based on the Guardian article, is that Warmists are saying that there has been no rise in surface temps in 17+ years, and that that doesn’t matter.
Teachy:
The point of your post was to mislead your hapless readers, and the point of the Guardian article was that the Earth is still warming. Did you read the article? Not only has the surface been warming but so have the oceans.
Nice try gitar. You do this often – claiming you have answered a question when you clearly haven’t. No you have not refuted the theory of AGW. Scientific theories are constantly bombarded with new evidence and data, so too the theory of AGW. The current evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing the Earth’s surface and oceans to warm.
A blizzard in February no more refutes the theory of AGW, than a hot air balloon refutes the theory of gravity.
Yes, climate scientists are scientists, and you and the pundits are not. In fact, you’re a fossil fool.
Do you ever tire of digging scheisse out of your ears after pulling your head out of your arse, fossil fool.
There is no “try,” there is only “do” or “do not.”
I did.
You failed.
It might be clear to you because you have your head in the sand and don’t read anything that you don’t agree with. Even then, you have demonstrated a lack of comprehension skills when it comes to most subjects.
It is therefore not surprising that you cannot understand or ignore the simple things that have been said.
At one point in time I thought that you simply didn’t see things. Now I know that you tactic of “you haven’t proved anything” is just a way of wasting the time of the rest of the people who can debate and who have more intellectual integrity than you.
That’s what you and your cult believe. I get it.
But your believe is not “proof.”
Nice try ostrich.
Except, the people they interviewed stated that the surface is not warming. The warmth is magically disappearing into the deep oceans and upper atmosphere. Of course, what data there is shows something different.
You and your fellow cultists are worse than the most ardent Jihadi, more dogmatic than any Taliban member. You’re part of a doomsday cult, and wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the ass. You’re like the creationists who drop flyers in bathrooms claiming dinosaurs were around when Man was first created.
The title of the Guardian article is:
“Weatherwatch: Like it or not, the future is hot”
and concludes “Like it or not Earth’s future is looking hot.”
As I said, and as almost all scientists agree, the Earth is warming.
And deniers deny.
Which is not a proof of AGW.
That CO2 drives the warming of the Earth has been well-understood for over a century. But deniers deny.
FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it causes global warming
FACT: CO2 is already at a level never before experienced by Homo sapiens
FACT: When CO2 rose rapidly and a lot in the past it precipitated a major extinction event
FACT: Earth is warming very rapidly in a sustained manner, with no sign of let-up
FACT: Arctic sea ice is melting at a very rapid pace, faster than was predicted
FACT: The oceans continue to build up heat, as does the surface
FACT: Unless we curb CO2 emissions, Earth could warm by more than six degrees in a very short time, much shorter than it has warmed in tens of millions of years
FACT: Going by past earth history, this would result in a major extinction event
FACT: If we let surface temperature rise by ten or twelve degrees, large areas of earth would be intolerable to humans
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
Obviously you don’t understand the meaning of “which is not proof of AGW.”
I don’t expect less from you since you have comprehension issues, but it would seem that at some point in time you would try and take a course on understanding the written word.
All your facts forget one thing, Jeff: to prove that the warming is caused solely/mostly by CO2 output from Mankind. You create a link out of thin air. It’s like blaming hurricanes on kids getting out of school for the summer.
Teach,
“… prove that the warming is caused solely/mostly by CO2 output from Mankind”
The increase in atmospheric CO2 seen during the past century from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is absolutely proven to be “mostly/solely” from coal, gas and oil, in the proportions that mankind is burning for energy. The papers are probably 20 yrs old but I can find them for you if you’re interested.
Where do you propose is causing the current rapid increase in atmospheric CO2? Perhaps the coal, gas and oil is decomposing underground to CO2 and water and is leaking out – I’m just trying to help a science denier out with a plausible “natural” mechanism. You’re welcome.
Scientists discover and science deniers deny.
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
That just about every scientifically literate person on Earth disagrees with you, while not proving you are wrong, should make you at least examine your position.
You have never stated what evidence would ever convince you of the theory of AGW. We know there is none because deniers don’t deny based on evidence, they deny based on ideology – i.e., the fear that communist/progressives will attempt to institute a one world government. Sadly, with deniers, the more overwhelming the scientific evidence, the more you dig in your heels, stamp your feet and deny, deny, deny.
1. Atmospheric CO2 has rapidly increased from 280ppm to 400ppm.
2. The increased CO2 is from man’s burning of fossil fuels.
3. Infrared radiation interacts with CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and is re-radiated back into the atmosphere.
4. The Earth’s surface and oceans are warming.
5. Reducing atmospheric CO2 will slow warming.
6. Other physical processes that can slow warming — Atmospheric dust and aerosols from Volcanic activity, global nuclear war, large asteroid strike. A new Maunder-type solar minimum. Increased albedo – increased glaciation or paint the Earth white.
Here is the evidence:
The Earth was cooling from 1945 to 1975 while CO2 added to the atmosphere by man was increasing.
You can look up the magazine articles from the time about the ‘global cooling’ catastrophe to prove it.
If C02 added to the atmosphere by man caused global warming, we couldn’t have had global cooling from 1945 to 1975.
“If C02 added to the atmosphere by man caused global warming, we couldn’t have had global cooling from 1945 to 1975.”
The Earth didn’t cool from 1945 to 1975 although the surface warmed more slowly than now. It’s a common misconception that CO2 is the only input controlling warming and cooling of the Earth’s surface. As is now very clear, natural phenomena such as the volcanoes, PDO, El Nino and La Nina can also move the dial up or down. Unnatural phenomena such as particulates and aerosols from industrial processes can also contribute.
Just as clear is the trend for the past century – Warming. That’s not to say that there are not apparent cooling periods, for example, the couple of years following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo or some of the years since 2005 where we’ve seen La Ninas. But the trend is 0.1 to 0.2 C increase per decade with no signs of slowing.
Also note that the processes of PDO, El Ninos, La Ninas don’t actually add or remove heat from the overall system (the Earth’s surface and oceans) but redistribute the heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. The added heat comes from the Sun and greenhouse gases cause the heat to be retained.