Global warming slowdown linked to Pacific

[ScienceRocks]

 

[flacaltenn]

The short term enso isn't a big climatic factor over the long term...Just a very short one.

The pdo on the other hand is a whole new animal!

The "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) is a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability. While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very different behavior in time. Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate (his dissertation topic with advisor Robert Francis). Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO. Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.

http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/(/home/alexeyk/mydata/TSsvd.in)readfile/.SST/.PDO

Look at any global temperature record and it follows this very closely.
1910-1940s warming
1980-2000 warming
1950-1970s stable
2000-today stable

The pdo explains the warming or stable temperature difference of the past 100 years.

The thing is the oceans @ atmosphere are both part of the system....There's only two ways to make more energy into the climatic system. 1# More solar flex, 2# green house effect. Why did they model this and say as they did??? Science is ever evolving and we're learning more....Why did people not understand how plates move across the globe 100 years ago?

You do understand the implication of your "explains everything" moment?? (not saying it isn't probable).. If you subtract PDO from the OBSERVED warming, than the rate of rise for CO2 ALONE is close to "less than theoretical". Meaning that other "negative forcings" are probably in play..

 

[westwall]

Gee, look at that.... the trend pretty closely follows the warm up from the LIA.....that Mann tried to excise from the historic record IIRC....

 

[skookerasbil]

There are three things that are certain in life......


1) Death

2) Taxes

3) The Climate Manufacturing Company coming up with new fabulous excuses for the predictions that
blow up in their face

 

[SSDD]

This is a good solid case for the slowing of the warming...The PDO is the longer term pattern of the Pacific.

One must wonder when they found that a natural cycle may well be responsible for the cooling they didn't ask the obvious question and look at history....if a natural cycle in such a small area could halt global warming, could a natural cycle also be responsible for the warming?

 

[Abraham3]

Imagine that -- natural variations SWAMPING the effects of CO2 warming.. I thought the IPCC ASSURED us that wouldn't be the case..

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

 

[SSDD]

Imagine that -- natural variations SWAMPING the effects of CO2 warming.. I thought the IPCC ASSURED us that wouldn't be the case..

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pacific getting cooler in response to AGW makes it sound as if the earth is a living organism

 

[SSDD]

The Pacific getting cooler in response to AGW makes it sound as if the earth is a living organism

It's Gaia man......Gaia I tell you!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pacific getting cooler in response to AGW makes it sound as if the earth is a living organism

It's Gaia man......Gaia I tell you!!!!!

But, thankfully our AGW models have eliminated all variables save for an additional wisp of CO2 and are now completely impervious to any new data or facts

 

[SSDD]

The rats are looking for an exit from a sinking ship; the smart rats anyway. The idiots will ride the CO2/AGW crazy train to the bitter end. It is funny now how natural variability has suddenly become the buzzword. For damned near 2 decades now we have been hearing how CO2 was the control knob and suddenly, it seems that the research has reached a tipping point and the hoax can no longer support itself...natural variability...imagine that. I have been saying natural variability for at least 2 decades now...how long have you been saying it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that -- natural variations SWAMPING the effects of CO2 warming.. I thought the IPCC ASSURED us that wouldn't be the case..

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

Cork is what you have for brains.. I've shown you how distorted that IPCC chart is for POSITIVE forcings. WHERE in that chart is there a negative OCEAN cyclic forcing that could virtually HALT the warming from CO2???

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that -- natural variations SWAMPING the effects of CO2 warming.. I thought the IPCC ASSURED us that wouldn't be the case..

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

NO -- just doing their job to account for all the MAN-CAUSED warming.. You're never gonna get that --- are ya???


The sacred chart is CRAP !!!!

 

[mamooth]

Denialists keep getting less coherent and more deranged. They mostly just snarl mindlessly now. Their sanity death spiral has begun, and they can't pull out.

Nothing we can do but laugh, and point to them as examples of what to avoid. After all, as this study shows, haters gonna hate. So we ignore them and move on.

Researchers take on crucial question: Are haters gonna hate?

 

[flacaltenn]

Projection --- PROJECTION --- Projection... (sung to the tune of the Chorus from "Tradition" -- Fiddler on the the Roof)

Less coherent and more deranged.. That's why you're seeking psychiatric help on this issue???

 

[RollingThunder]

Imagine that -- natural variations SWAMPING the effects of CO2 warming.. I thought the IPCC ASSURED us that wouldn't be the case..

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

It's hard to tell if you're being deliberately deceptive or you're just too stupid and ignorant about science to recognize your mistake. The chart you posted is only tracking "radiative forcings", not the other natural factors that can influence the climate, like the ENSO or PDO cycles. Too bad you're too ignorant and clueless to comprehend the difference, SSoooDDuuuumb.

Radiative forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

It's hard to tell if you're being deliberately deceptive or you're just too stupid and ignorant about science to recognize your mistake. The chart you posted is only tracking "radiative forcings", not the other natural factors that can influence the climate, like the ENSO or PDO cycles. Too bad you're too ignorant and clueless to comprehend the difference, SSoooDDuuuumb.

Radiative forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.

HEY MORON --- that chart is so fucked up --- it doesn't matter WHAT the title is.

If "Surface Albedo" and black soot on snow is a RADIATIVE FORCING ---- SO IS a warmer or cooler ocean TinkerBelle..

Or did that JUST OCCUR to your heroes since the IPCC coughed up that hairball?
I'll tell you why lied about solar insolation in that chart and why the Ocean Cycles are not in there..

It's because the IPCC is chartered to only investigate those issues that are relevent to MAN-MADE climate change. That's why the bottom line in that chart reads as it does.

IT IS CRAP !!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Then you thought wrong. Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist has ever assured that wouldn't be the case. How many times have you see the graph of radiative forcing factors - the vertical bar graph? Is CO2 alone there? No. So unless you've got something a little more germane to bring to the discussion, stick a cork in it.

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

NO -- just doing their job to account for all the MAN-CAUSED warming.. You're never gonna get that --- are ya???

The sacred chart is CRAP !!!!

Your brain is CRAP, fecalhead!!!!

And another dumbass denier cult dingbat pops up who also can't comprehend the meaning of "radiative forcing", or how it differs from the other natural factors that influence heat distribution within the Earth system.

The Earth is taking in more energy than it is radiating away into space and that's an observed and measurable fact. Natural factors like the ENSO and PDO cycles influence how the excess solar energy is distributed to the atmosphere and oceans but they do not change the fact that the Earth is still warming up.

 

[flacaltenn]

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

NO -- just doing their job to account for all the MAN-CAUSED warming.. You're never gonna get that --- are ya???

The sacred chart is CRAP !!!!

Your brain is CRAP, fecalhead!!!!

And another dumbass denier cult dingbat pops up who also can't comprehend the meaning of "radiative forcing", or how it differs from the other natural factors that influence heat distribution within the Earth system.

The Earth is taking in more energy than it is radiating away into space and that's an observed and measurable fact. Natural factors like the ENSO and PDO cycles influence how the excess solar energy is distributed to the atmosphere and oceans but they do not change the fact that the Earth is still warming up.

And you're an ignorant jerk.. The oceans are a radiative source and a radiative sink. Just like the rest of the Earth surface. If you're accounting for a thermal RADIATION budget -- you best not leave out the VARIANCES in those EM absorbing/emitting objects.

Unless you're just trying to paint a picture of how conclusive it is -- that MAN is responsible for all of this.. And you're just a UN dog/pony show..

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey......denialists might be totally incoherent and beyond deranged......

But sure as shit......we're winning!!!


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


The Green Subsidy Job Loss Nexus - Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black


Corrupted Research - Exposing the Peer Review Process


The Breakthrough Institute - Germany Returns to Coal


Spain?s Green Energy Industry Collapses After Subsidies Ended | Say Anything


Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The ?ensemble? of models is completely meaningless, statistically | Watts Up With That?


Ezra Klein - Cap-and-trade is dead