Reply With Quote
FWIW.
My question was serious, and important as well.
Warming has specific causes.
If you want to reject a theory, but can't show how the alternative(s) is (are) a better fit, you are practicing pseudo-science.
FWIW.
https://www.co2.earth/December 2015 smashed all-time global average temperature records for all months since 1880 by deviating from the 20th Century average by 1.11°C. This is the first time the deviation exceeded 1°C and it is the largest margin ever for breaking a prior record. [NOAA global analysis for December 2015 accessed January 20, 2016].
"This year marks an important first but that doesn't necessarily mean every year from now on will be a degree or more above pre-industrial levels, as natural variability will still play a role in determining the temperature in any given year. As the world continues to warm in the coming decades, however, we will see more and more years passing the 1 degree marker - eventually it will become the norm."
~ Peter Stott
Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution (MET Office)
https://www.co2.earth/co2-past-present-future-articleWe know that atmospheric CO2 has ranged between 172 and 300 part per million (ppm) for the past 1 million years. The earth cycled through cold glacial and warm inter-glacial periods without atmospheric CO2 exceeding 300 ppm. The first time in human history that atmospheric CO2 exceeded 300 ppm was about the time the anic sank in the North Atlantic Ocean. Now, the crossover to concentrations that stay above 400 ppm CO2 is nearly complete.
You have asked "if global warming is real, why is it plateauing?"
Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2915.html
Formal detection and attribution studies have used observations and climate models to identify an anthropogenic warming signature in the upper (0–700 m) ocean1, 2, 3, 4. Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational5, 6, 7, modelling8, 9 and data re-analysis10, 11 studies. Here, we examine OHC changes in the context of the Earth’s global energy budget since early in the industrial era (circa 1865–2015) for a range of depths. We rely on OHC change estimates from a diverse collection of measurement systems including data from the nineteenth-century Challenger expedition12, a multi-decadal record of ship-based in situ mostly upper-ocean measurements, the more recent near-global Argo floats profiling to intermediate (2,000 m) depths13, and full-depth repeated transoceanic sections5. We show that the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems. Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the ac ulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.
I don't want to reject any theory. Global warming is a real thing, I just don't know how much is natural vs. anthropogenic. It is interesting that two of the major es in global temperature were accompanied by El Nino events.
Here is a write-up on it from nature, on the 2015 being the hottest:
2015 declared the hottest year on record
And the pause is in conjunction with the sun calming.
NOAA/Livermore National Laboratory --"Global Ocean Warming has Doubled in Recent Decades"
"In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean," said LLNL scientist Peter Gleckler, lead author of a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Lawrence Livermore scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.
Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming.
The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions.
Quantifying how much heat is ac ulating in the Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast the Earth will warm and seas rise in the future.
Increases in upper ocean temperatures since the 1970s are well do ented and associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
By including measurements from a 19th century oceanographic expedition and recent changes in the deeper ocean, the study indicates that half of the ac ulated heat during the industrial era has occurred in recent decades, with about a third residing in the deeper oceans.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ce%2C+Tech.%29
Yes!
That's the answer!
El Nino, generating its own heating from nothing, causes global warming!
Finally, we have the culprit!
Deep Ocean Waters Are Trapping Vast Stores of Heat
A new generation of scientific instruments has begun scouring ocean depths for temperature data, and the evidence being pinged back via satellite warns that the consequences of fossil fuel burning and deforestation are ac ulating far below the planet’s surface.
More than 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gas pollution since the 1970s has wound up in the oceans, and research published Monday revealed that a little more than a third of that seafaring heat has worked its way down to depths greater than 2,300 feet (700 meters).
Plunged to ocean depths by winds and currents, that trapped heat has eluded surface temperature measurements, fueling claims of a “hiatus” or “pause” in global warming from 1998 to 2013. But by expanding cool water, the deep-sea heat’s impacts have been indirectly visible in coastal regions by pushing up sea levels, contributing to worsening high-tide flooding.
“The heat’s going in at the surface, so it’s getting down pretty deep,” said Glen Gawarkiewicz, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins ution scientist who was not involved with the study. “With 35 percent of the heat uptake going below 700 meters, it really points out the importance of continued deep ocean sampling. It was a surprise to me that it was that large of a fraction.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tores-of-heat/
Sophist asshole is as sophist asshole does. You still have me on ignore for showing how you act just like those CA terrorist's lawyers? The parallels were stark.
They wait for a major announcement. You wait for something that sounds good to hit your facebook feed.
Only reason why you don't post more on this account is because it's been so shamed. You used to post on climate daily. Losing sucks doesn't it?
If he has you on ignore why are you talking to him? I know you have me on ignore but you have no impulse control and you read all of mine anyways. Not everyone has your same problems.
That dude has issues
Because I understand very well the use of multiple accounts and how it works here. You guys don't seem to understand the concept of my audience is not just you.
It's to meter your spam when you're upset and not give you what you want in general. If you want to do the round and round, you have Chump for that.
It's cute when you start mimicking my derogations. It means they scored. The concept is 'actions speak louder than words.'
Well, the link provided only links to Nature, but I found the Letter anyway. Note... It's a letter. Not a peer reviewed paper!
NOAA/Livermore National Laboratory --"Global Ocean Warming has Doubled in Recent Decades"
"In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean," said LLNL scientist Peter Gleckler, lead author of a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Lawrence Livermore scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.
Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming.
The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions.
Quantifying how much heat is ac ulating in the Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast the Earth will warm and seas rise in the future.
Increases in upper ocean temperatures since the 1970s are well do ented and associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
By including measurements from a 19th century oceanographic expedition and recent changes in the deeper ocean, the study indicates that half of the ac ulated heat during the industrial era has occurred in recent decades, with about a third residing in the deeper oceans.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ce%2C+Tech.%29
Yes!
That's the answer!
El Nino, generating its own heating from nothing, causes global warming!
Finally, we have the culprit!
Link: Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades
The blogger from The Daily Galaxy misrepresents the article. The article tries to explain, through modeled results of sparse observations, what has happened. It does not claim it as fact. A few snippets:
We make use of results from state-of-the-art climate models made available as part of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, CMIP5 (ref. 36). We focus on comparing observations with historically forced (or ‘Historical’) simulations that nominally begin in 1850 and end in 2005.
We use estimated OHC changes between the Challenger expedition and Argo period; multi-instrument OHC estimates for the upper and intermediate ocean (1960–near present), and a deep-layer linear change estimate (1992–2005).
There is a lot of conjecture, and nothing real substantive.
This letter in Nature Geoscience might be more apt to explain the 2015 hottest year:
Link: Amplification of El Niño by cloud longwave coupling to atmospheric circulation
El Niño is amplified by the positive Bjerknes feedback mechanism (Fig. 1a): (1) Positive SST anomalies in the central or eastern Pacific cause (2) local diabatic heating within precipitating deep convective clouds, leading to (3) a weaker Walker circulation and (4) weakened easterlies in the western Pacific, which in turn (5) lessens the tilt of the thermocline and suppresses upwelling of cold deep ocean waters in the east—ultimately leading to further warming of the SSTs.
Total Niño-3.4 variance (Supplementary Table 1) is dominated by the 3–7-year timescales, and the variance in the control matches the observed 1870–2014 variance (0.57 ± 0.04 versus 0.58 ± 0.09 K2), whereas in the experiment with non-interactive clouds the variance is a factor of three smaller (0.20 ± 0.08 K2).
These are paywalled, but I have a subscription. That's why I didn't quote any of the abstract. You all can see the abstracts. Just not the parts I quoted, or the rest of the letters.
Now you want the peer review? Either it's valid or it's not chachi. Recall IPCC is peer reviewed? Likely not nor have you considered what your current sophistry means to your general position. I guess that is a big problem when you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
My God you are a tacky troll. Don't you ever have anything useful to say, or do you just like ting yourself all over the forums?
The only one I've 'called out' is angrydude as Yoni and that was because he wasn't trying to hide it. For those that are trying real hard at it, I don't tell you what I think specifically because you will simply use it. It does me no good to share my thoughts with you.
Further how would you whether or not what I am saying is correct anyway? You're not overly bright to begin with and if you're complicit then it just speaks to the above moreso.
I put you on ignore because you like getting into those hour long round and rounds like you do with Chump on the regular. I have no interest in that so I filter you with the ignore feature. As much as you cry about it, it's obviously a hit. You do like to spam.
Do you believe in the efficacy of peer review or not? You just going to reflexively cry again?
Pal review or peer review?
Aside from that, most papers do no say what the pundits claim, or what the IPCCC cherry picks out of them. Full context often doesn't have the same implications.
You are still dodging. IPCC is peer reviewed. You either accept it or don't. Watching you squirm around my point is amusing though. You see it yet, dimwit?
The IPCC is not peer reviewed by any intent of the phrase. It is pal reviewed. Those doing the lead roles are activists of an agenda.
You've already lost that argument around this time last year.
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
Your team was paying people in the review panels not Al Gore. So in other words you like peer review except when it goes against you.
Logical fallacies are not proof.
The guardian is a joke.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
