The inconvenient 17-year pause in glo...

The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming

There are 123 comments on the South China Morning Post story from Sep 13, 2013, titled The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming. In it, South China Morning Post reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at South China Morning Post.

Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#62 Sep 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
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...
LOL So the loaded in history and then forced the model the reproduce the history they loaded into it?! We're pretty clear on the history since 1955, it's the future I don't think they will be able to predict with any more accuracy than the existing models have done.
SpaceBlues

United States

#63 Sep 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL So the loaded in history and then forced the model the reproduce the history they loaded into it?! We're pretty clear on the history since 1955, it's the future I don't think they will be able to predict with any more accuracy than the existing models have done.
BWAHAHAHAHA

Your science ignorance is bleeding... get help.. quick...
Jim

Katy, TX

#64 Sep 28, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
One more time (denial ditto machine still going strong) there is NO pause in GLOBAL WARMING. There is a pause in the temperature rise of the AIR temps. A paltry 2% of the 'surface' which is subject to a lot of variance from heat transfer changes such as ENSO exposing a lot of cold deeper water to the surface where it affects the amount of heat transferred to the air.
I know that some people think that there is a large 'debate' about AGW science and some skepticism but mostly it is faulty logic and misrepresentation like this, being repeated over and over by clueless doofusses (news, blogs, and other morons).
Really sad how some of the brainless tripe are still deniers! They look at the facts, all the evidence, and still, despite it all, THEY STILL DENY THAT Anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange IS A HOAX! Can you believe it? Instead of believing in their own lying eyes, instead of believing in factual evidence, they still bitterly cling to their computer models and read from the Holy Book Of Hansen! "Yea they I walk through the valley of cooling I will fear no IceCap, for thy Hockey Stick and Thy Models they comfort me!"
Jim

Katy, TX

#65 Sep 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL So the loaded in history and then forced the model the reproduce the history they loaded into it?! We're pretty clear on the history since 1955, it's the future I don't think they will be able to predict with any more accuracy than the existing models have done.
It's pointless to try to convince the True Believers of their ignorance. I gave up on it, and find it more satisfying just to laugh at their gullibility. Their refusal to accept reality over a belief (not science, a belief) system ingrained in them by government paid shills is simply a mental illness. Its the same symptom found in all who believe in Big Government solutions. It's not their fault it's not working. We just need to spend more money. It's just pointless. Their fantasy world of lies and deceit simply overwhelm them...
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#66 Sep 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Seems we do have observations pre 2000:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...
Some people would perceive deception, lie, falsehood and a basic dishonesty after reading the above quote. That may not be fair but it is understandable if an admission of error is not forthcoming. Not correcting this misleading statement is establishing the reputation as fundamentally dishonest.

Honest or dishonest... Time will tell
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#67 Sep 28, 2013
Climate model forecasts are predetermined.
Every climate model shows warming and negative impacts.

What science editor would publish a climate model that showed cooling and positive impacts... the outcry against such a published model would be ruinous.

Besides, the peer review process would prevent the consideration of a climate model that predicted positive impacts as articulated in emails of the major players in climate research.
SpaceBlues

United States

#68 Sep 28, 2013
In the last days of whine and deniers ... long due concessions arrive in mum silence .. receiving instant acceptance and byebye.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#69 Sep 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL So the loaded in history and then forced the model the reproduce the history they loaded into it?!
No. They loaded in a small area of the Pacific, then the model reproduced global changes very well.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#70 Sep 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
LOL So they loaded in history and then forced the model to reproduce the history they loaded into it?! We're pretty clear on the history since 1955, it's the future I don't think they will be able to predict with any more accuracy than the existing models have done.
Predictions might improve if 'they' learn from the past mistakes of others and reduce the guesstimate rates that have thus far made them look foolish.
They might score a few more points if their predicted numbers are below observations.
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#71 Sep 28, 2013
Forecasting warmer and more extreme weather events is the only way to improve future climate models.

Climate Science Orthodoxy requires warmer and more extreme weather events to validate previous forecasts.
.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#72 Sep 28, 2013
Hey deniers .. Living on our planet in a sustainable way is the only path that makes any sense.

The steps each individual takes may be small, but without them, the price paid by grandchildren may be much, much worse.[thescotsman]

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#73 Sep 29, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Forecasting warmer and more extreme weather events is the only way to improve future climate models.
Climate Science Orthodoxy requires warmer and more extreme weather events to validate previous forecasts.
Doesn't help their cause much if those events can't be linked to Glowbull warming by anything more than sketchy evidence.
It helps even less when warming slows to less than the pace of a dead snail and sea level rise almost comes to a standstill.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#74 Sep 29, 2013
ABCnewsradio:(GENEVA)-- The new U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report should serve as a "wake-up call" to governments and society about the role of humans in global warming, scientists say.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, which was published Friday, found.

"This report confirms with even more certainty than in the past -- that it is extremely likely that the changes in our climate system for the past half a century are due to human influence," Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, which co-sponsored the IPCC, said in a statement.

"It should serve as yet another wake-up call that our activities today will have a profound impact on society not only for us but for many generations to come," he said.

More than 800 authors across more than 39 countries contributed to the working group's 2,500-page assessment, which draws on millions of observations and numerical data from climate model simulations.

The report, which contains the strongest wording yet on the existence of climate change and the role that humans play in contributing to it, states: "Warming in the climate system is unequivocal."

It also documents that the last three decades have successively been warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decades since 1850.

Scientists have predicted continued shrinking ice caps, rising sea levels, longer and more frequent heat waves, and wet regions receiving more rainfall and dry ones receiving less, as a result of these changes.

"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system," said Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of the IPCC Working Group I which released the report.

"Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

"As the ocean warms, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years," said Working Group I's other Co-Chair Qin Dahe.

The report's summary for policy makers also contained strong wording.

"It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century" and it is "extremely likely" that more than half of observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human produced greenhouse gas activity, the report summary said.

The report had been met with some criticism, notably by skeptics and climate change deniers in the lead-up to its release.

The IPCC fourth report, released in 2007, also came under fire from critics when it was released for including incorrect statements on Himalayan glaciers and natural disasters.

Next year, two other working groups that release reports on climate change for the IPCC will reveal their findings on the impacts global warming has on adaptability and vulnerability, and a policy report on mitigation.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#75 Sep 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No. They loaded in a small area of the Pacific, then the model reproduced global changes very well.
They loaded the PDO and the ENSO. I have been telling you for years that these two factors impact world climate. Your reference would indicate by loading those factors world climate could be reproduced, if true, then the climate of the warming years was driven by those factors. Or so it would appear.

"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... ;
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#76 Sep 30, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
They loaded the PDO and the ENSO. I have been telling you for years that these two factors impact world climate. Your reference would indicate by loading those factors world climate could be reproduced, if true, then the climate of the warming years was driven by those factors. Or so it would appear.
Drivel. "loading the pacific' in a valid ocean model (which includes the GCM as well) would produce the PDO and ESNO as a RESULT of operation. It would TEST the validity of the model to reproduce these climate cycles. And DID. That is the point.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
"Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling.
The ENSO and PDO cycles (but mostly ENSO) then reproduced the 'hiatus' in the air temperature by moving more heat into the ocean. Evidence of the connection between the strong La-Nina cycles of 2010 and 20112 and the current shift in heat from the air to the water.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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... ;
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LIE. The model was valid and your are accusing them of a fraud which you cannot show evidence of.. More 'global conspiracy of science' bullshit.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again you did a deeper hole. Reached China yet?
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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... ;
Yes. The model reproduced the observed changes. This is how models are tested and known to be valid. But it is not a trick and your claims of fraud are without foundation.

It is pitiful that denialists, when presented with the evidence, will run to conspiracy and fraud accusations in order to deny the facts.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#77 Sep 30, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
They loaded the PDO and the ENSO. I have been telling you for years that these two factors impact world climate. Your reference would indicate by loading those factors world climate could be reproduced, if true, then the climate of the warming years was driven by those factors. Or so it would appear.
Non sequitur.

ENSO is a short term effect and can't explain decade upon decade of warming.

And if ENSO was responsible for surface, you would expect to sea ocean cooling, whereas the long term trend is ocean warming.

Things I've been telling you for years.

But instead of taking facts on board, you prefer wishful thinking and lies.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#78 Sep 30, 2013
FuGyou wrote:
Things I've been telling you for years.
Are you the ultimate source of climate science?

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#79 Oct 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Non sequitur.
ENSO is a short term effect and can't explain decade upon decade of warming.
And if ENSO was responsible for surface, you would expect to sea ocean cooling, whereas the long term trend is ocean warming.
Things I've been telling you for years.
But instead of taking facts on board, you prefer wishful thinking and lies.
No non sequitur. If la nina is responsible for cooling down the place then el nino was responsible for warming it up.

But it's not that simple, just like all climate science it's very complex. What causes the el ninos vs the la ninas is very important and all the ancillary processes as a result of these functions are also important.

CO2 is not driving climate. That's the most important news because that's what the politicos are using to wring more money out of our economies.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#80 Oct 1, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
No..
CO2 is not driving climate. That's the most important news because that's what the politicos are using to wring more money out of our economies.
What's your evidence?

Daily manmade 90 million tons of it? Energy equivalent to 400,000 hiroshimas?

AWWW we know you are getting paid to misrepresent the science that you don't even understand...

What a shill, traitor..

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#81 Oct 1, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
No non sequitur. If la nina is responsible for cooling down the place then el nino was responsible for warming it up.
The not so fun facts say otherwise.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Non sequitur.
ENSO is a short term effect and can't explain decade upon decade of warming.
And if ENSO was responsible for surface, you would expect to sea ocean cooling, whereas the long term trend is ocean warming.
Things I've been telling you for years.
But instead of taking facts on board, you prefer wishful thinking and lies.

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
drugs (Jun '15) Wed Cdub94 4
Looking to buy... May 2 Audrina 1
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 29 Zionism is racism 72,025
News Pacific Grove swears in new city manager, exami... Apr 26 Lucy Anne 1
News HBO's 'Big Little Lies' starring Nicole Kidman ... Apr 26 Julie Jane 1
News Environmental groups now back revised Carmel Ri... Apr 26 Julie Jane 1
News Monterey native Rachel Roy: I'm not 'Becky with... Apr 26 Julie Jane 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages