Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,753
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows




Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows

Posted on 10 December 2013 by dana1981

New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades. They conclude that while the rate of increase of average global surface temperatures has slowed since 1998, melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and warming oceans have continued apace.

The widespread mainstream media focus on the slowed global surface warming has led some climate scientists like Trenberth and Fasullo to investigate its causes and how much various factors have contributed to the so-called 'pause' or 'hiatus.' However, the authors note that while the increase in global temperatures has slowed, the oceans have taken up heat at a faster rate since the turn of the century. Over 90 percent of the overall extra heat goes into the oceans, with only about 2 percent heating the Earth's atmosphere. The myth of the 'pause' is based on ignoring 98 percent of global warming and focusing exclusively on the one bit that's slowed.

Focusing only on surface temperatures

Nevertheless, the causes of the slowed global surface temperature increase present an interesting scientific question. In examining changes in the activity of the sun and volcanoes, Trenberth and Fasullo estimated that they can account for no more than a 20 percent reduction in the Earth's energy imbalance, which is what causes global warming. Thus the cause of the slowed surface warming must primarily lie elsewhere, and ocean cycles are the most likely culprit.

Trenberth and Fasullo found that after the massive El Niño event in 1998, the Pacific Ocean appears to have shifted into a new mode of operation. Since that time, Trenberth's research has shown that the deep oceans have absorbed more heat than at any other time in the past 50 years.

As a recent paper published in the journal Nature showed, the Pacific Ocean in particular appears to be the key component of the climate's natural internal variability, and the main culprit behind the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years. However, another important recent paper by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way showed that the global surface temperature rise has not slowed as much as some previously thought; in fact, the surface warming since 1997 happened more than twice as fast as previous estimates.
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

I think it is the pacific and the aerosols working with perfect timing to mask the effects. This may of fucked humanity.
 
Last edited:

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Once again this proves that AGW is bunk!

The church is putting out all kinds of propaganda to show that their religion is the one true religion.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
You have to have a change in the pattern of ocean currents to alter the amount of heat moving into the deep ocean. Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen modeled changes in tropical gyres while looking for a cause of the recent change. I personally think they may find that the increased delta T between the previously unchanged deep water and the rapidly warming and less dense surface water may have allowed the upward leg of the AMO to accelerate. Thus room is made for a more rapid descent of the Arctic water which is still cold enough to sink but, relatively speaking, carries considerably more heat to the depths than it once did. It's a big convection loop we've put in the bunsen's flame.

I'd still be concerned, however, that after sufficient warming at the poles and the dumping of large amounts of fresh meltwater into the region, the density of Arctic water could become insufficient to sink and the AMO could come to a screeching halt. If that were happen, you can say goodbye to a LARGE portion of the world's pelagic fish species as the cessation of equatorial upwelling will end the food supply for the phytoplankton sitting at the foundation of the entire marine ecosystem.

Buy, hey, I'm just a liberal nut job in the pay of the LED industry looking to curtail human rights worldwide - cause that's what we do.
 
Last edited:

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Once again this proves that AGW is bunk!

The church is putting out all kinds of propaganda to show that their religion is the one true religion.
WHAT proves it's bunk?
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Once again this proves that AGW is bunk!

The church is putting out all kinds of propaganda to show that their religion is the one true religion.
WHAT proves it's bunk?
Just about everything using real science.

Not hard to do when you can see that CO2 has NEVER driven climate.

But the church must hold onto control as those AGW dollars keep pouring in.

Take that money away and I bet AGW goes away.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Once again this proves that AGW is bunk!

The church is putting out all kinds of propaganda to show that their religion is the one true religion.
WHAT proves it's bunk?
Just about everything using real science.

Not hard to do when you can see that CO2 has NEVER driven climate.

But the church must hold onto control as those AGW dollars keep pouring in.

Take that money away and I bet AGW goes away.
Is there some reason you're making this difficult? The five reports of the IPCC and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based, say different. Multiple reviews of the literature have shown an overwhelming amount of support for the validity of AGW. So, when you say "Just about everything using real science", would you mind identifying some specifics?

As to CO2 and climate: if you do not think CO2 has caused the last 150 years of warming, what DO you believe caused it? And what is your evidence?
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,615
Reaction score
9,615
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
WHAT proves it's bunk?
Just about everything using real science.

Not hard to do when you can see that CO2 has NEVER driven climate.

But the church must hold onto control as those AGW dollars keep pouring in.

Take that money away and I bet AGW goes away.
Is there some reason you're making this difficult? The five reports of the IPCC and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based, say different. Multiple reviews of the literature have shown an overwhelming amount of support for the validity of AGW. So, when you say "Just about everything using real science", would you mind identifying some specifics?

As to CO2 and climate: if you do not think CO2 has caused the last 150 years of warming, what DO you believe caused it? And what is your evidence?
You first provide us with a current state of the art experiment that shows rising CO2 at the levels we have seen cause the little bit of warming we have seen. You guys keep making the claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it not ours to disprove it.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Just about everything using real science.

Not hard to do when you can see that CO2 has NEVER driven climate.

But the church must hold onto control as those AGW dollars keep pouring in.

Take that money away and I bet AGW goes away.
Is there some reason you're making this difficult? The five reports of the IPCC and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based, say different. Multiple reviews of the literature have shown an overwhelming amount of support for the validity of AGW. So, when you say "Just about everything using real science", would you mind identifying some specifics?

As to CO2 and climate: if you do not think CO2 has caused the last 150 years of warming, what DO you believe caused it? And what is your evidence?
You first provide us with a current state of the art experiment that shows rising CO2 at the levels we have seen cause the little bit of warming we have seen. You guys keep making the claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it not ours to disprove it.
You have a misunderstanding about science that seems to be pretty common around here. There is no such thing as PROOF in the natural sciences. The scientific method does not generally make use of proof. It uses evidence, repeatable experimentation, successful predictions, the laws of nature, logic and reason.

An enormous amount of evidence exists supporting the theory that the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is due to increased levels of GHG in the atmosphere and isotopic analysis indicates that virtually every molecule of those excess GHGs originated from the combustion of fossil fuels or, more recently, was released from sequestration due to the warming those GHGs caused. No other theory comes anywhere close to fitting the observations and experiments as closely. That's why 97% of active climate scientists believe that to be the case. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW.

If you're going to stand in for Kosh, you might attempt to answer the same questions I've been asking him. By standing with the overwhelmingly mainstream position, I am not the one making extraordinary claims. Therefore, I am not obligated to provide extraordinary evidence. You are. And Kosh is. And so far I see none.
 
Last edited:

PredFan

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
39,677
Reaction score
5,871
Points
1,170
Location
In Liberal minds, rent free.
ZZZZZzzzzz zz........

Even if it was true that the earth is warming, there remains exactly zero evidence that man has anything to do with it.
 

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
Once again this proves that AGW is bunk!

The church is putting out all kinds of propaganda to show that their religion is the one true religion.
why do you say that denier boi?
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,615
Reaction score
9,615
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Is there some reason you're making this difficult? The five reports of the IPCC and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based, say different. Multiple reviews of the literature have shown an overwhelming amount of support for the validity of AGW. So, when you say "Just about everything using real science", would you mind identifying some specifics?

As to CO2 and climate: if you do not think CO2 has caused the last 150 years of warming, what DO you believe caused it? And what is your evidence?
You first provide us with a current state of the art experiment that shows rising CO2 at the levels we have seen cause the little bit of warming we have seen. You guys keep making the claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it not ours to disprove it.
You have a misunderstanding about science that seems to be pretty common around here. There is no such thing as PROOF in the natural sciences. The scientific method does not generally make use of proof. It uses evidence, repeatable experimentation, successful predictions, the laws of nature, logic and reason.

An enormous amount of evidence exists supporting the theory that the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is due to increased levels of GHG in the atmosphere and isotopic analysis indicates that virtually every molecule of those excess GHGs originated from the combustion of fossil fuels or, more recently, was released from sequestration due to the warming those GHGs caused. No other theory comes anywhere close to fitting the observations and experiments as closely. That's why 97% of active climate scientists believe that to be the case. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW.

If you're going to stand in for Kosh, you might attempt to answer the same questions I've been asking him. By standing with the overwhelmingly mainstream position, I am not the one making extraordinary claims. Therefore, I am not obligated to provide extraordinary evidence. You are. And Kosh is. And so far I see none.
Not a single experiment has been done that is repeatable, NOT ONE. You have no real basis other then lies altered charts and the flow of money as long as you keep making untested claims as if they are fact.

None of the computer climate models is accurate not one. We simply do not know enough about the climate to make a model of it.

The only thing we can do is Observe weather and make predictions on the currently observed weather patterns for about 2 to 3 weeks out.

Our prediction of large scale storms are based on historical records and guessing how many will be next year.

You don't have science. Science is not used to provide evidence of man made global warming, in fact every theory put out can not explain the 15 years of NO WARMING we are currently in.
 

PredFan

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
39,677
Reaction score
5,871
Points
1,170
Location
In Liberal minds, rent free.
People who believe that GHGs are causing warming are putting the cart before the horse. When a gas increases temperature, it can hold more molecules in suspension. Atoms like CO2, NO2, water, etc. the only credible data I've seen shows that high CO2 levels follows high temperatures. That data fits the science known as physics.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
People who believe that GHGs are causing warming are putting the cart before the horse. When a gas increases temperature, it can hold more molecules in suspension. Atoms like CO2, NO2, water, etc. the only credible data I've seen shows that high CO2 levels follows high temperatures. That data fits the science known as physics.
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA....

Are you KIDDING me?!?!

Do you realize how stupid that is?
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
You first provide us with a current state of the art experiment that shows rising CO2 at the levels we have seen cause the little bit of warming we have seen. You guys keep making the claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it not ours to disprove it.
You have a misunderstanding about science that seems to be pretty common around here. There is no such thing as PROOF in the natural sciences. The scientific method does not generally make use of proof. It uses evidence, repeatable experimentation, successful predictions, the laws of nature, logic and reason.

An enormous amount of evidence exists supporting the theory that the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is due to increased levels of GHG in the atmosphere and isotopic analysis indicates that virtually every molecule of those excess GHGs originated from the combustion of fossil fuels or, more recently, was released from sequestration due to the warming those GHGs caused. No other theory comes anywhere close to fitting the observations and experiments as closely. That's why 97% of active climate scientists believe that to be the case. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW.

If you're going to stand in for Kosh, you might attempt to answer the same questions I've been asking him. By standing with the overwhelmingly mainstream position, I am not the one making extraordinary claims. Therefore, I am not obligated to provide extraordinary evidence. You are. And Kosh is. And so far I see none.
Not a single experiment has been done that is repeatable, NOT ONE. You have no real basis other then lies altered charts and the flow of money as long as you keep making untested claims as if they are fact.

None of the computer climate models is accurate not one. We simply do not know enough about the climate to make a model of it.

The only thing we can do is Observe weather and make predictions on the currently observed weather patterns for about 2 to 3 weeks out.

Our prediction of large scale storms are based on historical records and guessing how many will be next year.

You don't have science. Science is not used to provide evidence of man made global warming, in fact every theory put out can not explain the 15 years of NO WARMING we are currently in.
How far'd you get in school Gunny?

On WHAT do you base your claim that no experiments have been repeatable? Are you familiar with ANY experiments in this field? On what do you base ANY of your beliefs? Good grief.
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,514
Reaction score
3,183
Points
280
Sounds like an ALGORithm.
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
It uses evidence, repeatable experimentation, successful predictions, the laws of nature, logic and reason.
Then AGW climate "science" has a big, huge problem....
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
WHAT proves it's bunk?
Just about everything using real science.

Not hard to do when you can see that CO2 has NEVER driven climate.

But the church must hold onto control as those AGW dollars keep pouring in.

Take that money away and I bet AGW goes away.
Is there some reason you're making this difficult? The five reports of the IPCC and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based, say different. Multiple reviews of the literature have shown an overwhelming amount of support for the validity of AGW. So, when you say "Just about everything using real science", would you mind identifying some specifics?

As to CO2 and climate: if you do not think CO2 has caused the last 150 years of warming, what DO you believe caused it? And what is your evidence?
Like I said they need to keep those trillions of dollars rolling in.

Just proved my point for me and didn't realized you did it.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Is there some reason you're making this difficult? The five reports of the IPCC and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based, say different. Multiple reviews of the literature have shown an overwhelming amount of support for the validity of AGW. So, when you say "Just about everything using real science", would you mind identifying some specifics?

As to CO2 and climate: if you do not think CO2 has caused the last 150 years of warming, what DO you believe caused it? And what is your evidence?
You first provide us with a current state of the art experiment that shows rising CO2 at the levels we have seen cause the little bit of warming we have seen. You guys keep making the claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it not ours to disprove it.
You have a misunderstanding about science that seems to be pretty common around here. There is no such thing as PROOF in the natural sciences. The scientific method does not generally make use of proof. It uses evidence, repeatable experimentation, successful predictions, the laws of nature, logic and reason.

An enormous amount of evidence exists supporting the theory that the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is due to increased levels of GHG in the atmosphere and isotopic analysis indicates that virtually every molecule of those excess GHGs originated from the combustion of fossil fuels or, more recently, was released from sequestration due to the warming those GHGs caused. No other theory comes anywhere close to fitting the observations and experiments as closely. That's why 97% of active climate scientists believe that to be the case. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW.

If you're going to stand in for Kosh, you might attempt to answer the same questions I've been asking him. By standing with the overwhelmingly mainstream position, I am not the one making extraordinary claims. Therefore, I am not obligated to provide extraordinary evidence. You are. And Kosh is. And so far I see none.
AGW is bunk!

CO2 has NEVER driven climate.

No scientist out there knows exactly was DOES drive climate.

So it is arrogant to say that CO2 drives climate when one does not understand how the climate engine even works.

The AGW crowd would take their car to a mechanic and tell them to fix the engine after scrapping the paint on one lug nut on the left rear wheel.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,696
Reaction score
21,201
Points
2,180
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows




Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows

Posted on 10 December 2013 by dana1981

New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades. They conclude that while the rate of increase of average global surface temperatures has slowed since 1998, melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and warming oceans have continued apace.

The widespread mainstream media focus on the slowed global surface warming has led some climate scientists like Trenberth and Fasullo to investigate its causes and how much various factors have contributed to the so-called 'pause' or 'hiatus.' However, the authors note that while the increase in global temperatures has slowed, the oceans have taken up heat at a faster rate since the turn of the century. Over 90 percent of the overall extra heat goes into the oceans, with only about 2 percent heating the Earth's atmosphere. The myth of the 'pause' is based on ignoring 98 percent of global warming and focusing exclusively on the one bit that's slowed.

Focusing only on surface temperatures

Nevertheless, the causes of the slowed global surface temperature increase present an interesting scientific question. In examining changes in the activity of the sun and volcanoes, Trenberth and Fasullo estimated that they can account for no more than a 20 percent reduction in the Earth's energy imbalance, which is what causes global warming. Thus the cause of the slowed surface warming must primarily lie elsewhere, and ocean cycles are the most likely culprit.

Trenberth and Fasullo found that after the massive El Niño event in 1998, the Pacific Ocean appears to have shifted into a new mode of operation. Since that time, Trenberth's research has shown that the deep oceans have absorbed more heat than at any other time in the past 50 years.

As a recent paper published in the journal Nature showed, the Pacific Ocean in particular appears to be the key component of the climate's natural internal variability, and the main culprit behind the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years. However, another important recent paper by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way showed that the global surface temperature rise has not slowed as much as some previously thought; in fact, the surface warming since 1997 happened more than twice as fast as previous estimates.
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

I think it is the pacific and the aerosols working with perfect timing to mask the effects. This may of fucked humanity.
Trenberth is a proven hack.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top