The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming

Sep 13, 2013 Full story: South China Morning Post 123

Howard Winn has been with the South China Morning Post for two and half years after previous stints as business editor and deputy editor of The Standard, and business editor of Asia Times.

Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#41 Sep 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
When did they start measuring the temperature of the deep oceans? Could it be they found the heat when they began to measure?
What was the temperature of the deep oceans in 1990? You can't tell me, because no one measured them.
If you don't know what the heat content was in 1990, or 1940 how can you say the heat went into the oceans any differently today than it did in prior periods?
Ocean heat reanalysis is another computer model.
The amount of heat entering the ocean can be estimated from sea level rise. Observations of sea level rise are consistent with the theory that more heat has entered the ocean in recent years.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Pap...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42 Sep 22, 2013
Seems we do have observations pre 2000:

...heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#43 Sep 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Seems we do have observations pre 2000:
...heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...
Nothing in what you posted states that we have deep ocean heat measurements from time periods prior to the argo buoys.

This is the same ocean reanalysis that has cropped up in all the other 'deep ocean heating' articles. It's a computer model.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#44 Sep 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The amount of heat entering the ocean can be estimated from sea level rise. Observations of sea level rise are consistent with the theory that more heat has entered the ocean in recent years.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Pap...
From your reference

It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming
solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet
, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the additional heat
from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been absorbed in the ocean and has not been manifest as a rise in surface temperature. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role. "

In other words, they don't know.

Even their best guess is that even though it can't be measured, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is still causing additional heat. They can't find that heat so they think it is in the ocean.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45 Sep 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in what you posted states that we have deep ocean heat measurements from time periods prior to the argo buoys.
"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. "

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46 Sep 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the same ocean reanalysis that has cropped up in all the other 'deep ocean heating' articles. It's a computer model.
You speak as if anything which is a computer model is ipso facto discredited- whuch is not true. Computer models are used in all branches of science and allow very real effects to be indentified.

Science deniers like you try to smear anything associated with a computer model as a fraud, but that, as usual with you, is a lie.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#47 Sep 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. "
Read the papers. It's a computer model. The same computer model that all the articles are based on created by a single scientist. Not even a separate computer model has been created. Read what the methodology is for determining deep ocean heat content.

This is desperation, to put all your eggs into one basket created by a single scientist's computer model, is like clinging to the edge of the cliff by your finger tips.

I guess you got to hold on to something.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#48 Sep 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak as if anything which is a computer model is ipso facto discredited- whuch is not true. Computer models are used in all branches of science and allow very real effects to be indentified.
Science deniers like you try to smear anything associated with a computer model as a fraud, but that, as usual with you, is a lie.
Not a fraud, just bad info. If you assume that there really is missing heat and you use that assumption in your computer model, you will get the erroneous predictions that the computer models have produced.

If you use the temperature data bases that have been adjusted to the point of irrelevance then you've got bad data, bad data produces erroneous results.

Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't have any real measurements to load into your computer, then the results of your program are imagination.

And to date the computer's imaginings haven't held up to reality.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#49 Sep 24, 2013
FuGyou wrote:
Science deniers like you try to smear anything associated with a computer model as a fraud, but that, as usual with you, is a lie.
Meanwhile, faithful religious catastrophists continue to defend computer models as being perfectly infallible.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#50 Sep 24, 2013
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Science deniers like you try to smear anything associated with a computer model as a fraud, but that, as usual with you, is a lie.
"Seems we do have observations pre 2000:"

Misrepresenting computer models as observed temps is the real invitation to accusations of "fraud" and "lie".
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#51 Sep 24, 2013
What the deniers are fighting shamelessly is the science progress at every step of the way. However, a denier's effort is meaningless because the trends are already established. The uncertainties get less and less, though.

Read the new IPCC report when released.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#52 Sep 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the papers. It's a computer model. The same computer model that all the articles are based on created by a single scientist. Not even a separate computer model has been created. Read what the methodology is for determining deep ocean heat content.
This is desperation, to put all your eggs into one basket created by a single scientist's computer model, is like clinging to the edge of the cliff by your finger tips.
I guess you got to hold on to something.
You failed to acknowledge that there *are* data from Before Argo.

The model is based on our understanding of the physical world, and is constrained by and tested against observations.

It's a collaborative effort by many scientists from many different countries, not one person.

http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/About-Us

Like models in all branches of science, it helps develop theories that fit the facts, and test those theories.

And the model tells us that the observations result from warming in the deep ocean.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#53 Sep 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a fraud, just bad info. If you assume that there really is missing heat and you use that assumption in your computer model, you will get the erroneous predictions that the computer models have produced.
If you use the temperature data bases that have been adjusted to the point of irrelevance then you've got bad data, bad data produces erroneous results.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't have any real measurements to load into your computer, then the results of your program are imagination.
And to date the computer's imaginings haven't held up to reality.
You have no experience of science, so it's easy for you to think scientists make an assumption and look for a way to make the evidence fit.

In fact, scientists usually look at the evidence and follow where it takes them, even if it is not where they expected to go.

I read the paper and see only scientists trying everything possible to test their conclusions.

You read it and see only scientists trying to twist the evidence to fit assumptions.

One of us is clearly wrong.

I am pretty sure it is you, as you don't even have the first clue which model we are talking about. This is an ocean model, not a climate model responsible for temperature predictions.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#54 Sep 24, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Meanwhile, faithful religious catastrophists continue to defend computer models as being perfectly infallible.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
<quoted text>"Seems we do have observations pre 2000:"
Misrepresenting computer models as observed temps is the real invitation to accusations of "fraud" and "lie".
Both of you clearly failed to notice this is an ocean model, not a model used for climate predictions.

Sadly you both lack the wit to appreciate your utter cluelessness about the subject on which you are so eager to express an opinion on.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#55 Sep 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Both of you clearly failed to notice this is an ocean model, not a model used for climate predictions.
Sadly you both lack the wit to appreciate your utter cluelessness about the subject on which you are so eager to express an opinion on.
LOL.

Correction.

That should of course be:

...about the subject which you are so eager to express an opinion on, bitches.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#56 Sep 24, 2013
Fair Game, you are the fairest of them all.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fairest

And very funny!
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#58 Sep 25, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pretty sure it is you, as you don't even have the first clue which model we are talking about. This is an ocean model, not a climate model responsible for temperature predictions.
This is an ocean model, responsible for (ocean) temperature predictions. And postdictions (the act of making a "prediction" about the past).

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#59 Sep 25, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an ocean model, responsible for (ocean) temperature predictions. And postdictions (the act of making a "prediction" about the past).
It's a model of the oceans- it will do whatever you ask it to do.

"Jellywatch. Impact of the circulation dynamics of the NW Mediterranean on jellyfish coastal invasion and stranding."

http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/About-NEMO/Projects

It has to be plugged into a full climate model to make temperature predictions.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#60 Sep 25, 2013
Models actually predict temperatures very well if you take the random element out of ocean behaviour:

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling.

They show this with an elegant experiment, in which they “force” their global climate model to follow the observed history of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific. With this trick the model is made to replay the actual sequence of El Niño and La Niña events found in the real world, rather than producing its own events by chance. The result is that the model then also reproduces the observed global average temperature history with great accuracy.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#61 Sep 27, 2013
FuGyou wrote:
It's a model of the oceans- it will do whatever you tell it to do.
Fixed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 26 min JOEL 71,217
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Tue Kristen Scannell ... 2
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:36 pm PST