An apparent hiatus in global warming?

An apparent hiatus in global warming?

There are 12 comments on the CiteULike story from Dec 6, 2013, titled An apparent hiatus in global warming?. In it, CiteULike reports that:

To insert individual citation into a bibliography in a word-processor, select your preferred citation style below and drag-and-drop it into the document.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CiteULike.

LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#1 Dec 7, 2013
No. The science still finds no significant 'pause' or 'hiaturs' in global warming, only a slower rise in air temperatures caused mostly by a couple of strong La-Nina's which pushed the heat into the polar regions and deeper oceans.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#2 Dec 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
No. The science still finds no significant 'pause' or 'hiaturs' in global warming, only a slower rise in air temperatures caused mostly by a couple of strong La-Nina's which pushed the heat into the polar regions and deeper oceans.
Once again... Failing to know the difference between a measurement and an opinion.
The UNIPCC WG1 clearly acknowledges the warming "hiatus".

Dr. Hansen's Climate Models suggest that the oceans are absorbing the "heat" that earlier models predicted to be destined for the atmosphere. As such it would be disingenuous at best to suggest that actual measurements have recorded these higher temps.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Dec 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
No. The science still finds no significant 'pause' or 'hiaturs' in global warming, only a slower rise in air temperatures caused mostly by a couple of strong La-Nina's which pushed the heat into the polar regions and deeper oceans.
The pause is "significant" in that during the hiatus; computer models forecasted temperatures to move up.
Since the global average temperature estimates were LESS than the computer predictions those models were not accurate within the allowed margins of error. In layman's terms that means they were...

Of course, those who are devout believers in Orthodox Climatology DENY this truth.

May your faith bring you peace.
Happy Holydays.
No Warming

Athens, OH

#5 Dec 8, 2013
The blogs seem to have their readers focused on ENSO events from 15 years ago. When I read something like this abstract, which are occurring frequently, I get the impression AGW scientists are near ready to concede. Nature has trumped AGW theory !
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#6 Dec 8, 2013
No Warming wrote:
The blogs seem to have their readers focused on ENSO events from 15 years ago. When I read something like this abstract, which are occurring frequently, I get the impression AGW scientists are near ready to concede. Nature has trumped AGW theory !
Scientists concede that noise (decadal oscillations) in air temperature are prevalent and expected.. They do not claim that this has ANY 'significance' to AGW. It has been stated many times by many scientists that the underlying signal is only significant after a thirty year filtering is applied. But then they have some understanding of the issue, unlike trolls like No Warming.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#7 Dec 8, 2013
The oceans' decadal and multidecadal oscillations are what makes climate.

During 'the warming' many scientists were called deniers because they pointed out that the oscillations were in positive modes therefore the climate would be warmer.

Now that the climate is cooler the AGW scientists are telling us the oscillations are causing the heat to go elsewhere. But not to fear, the oscillations will again switch back and the climate will warm, duh.

If the AGWs had just looked at history they would have seen the pattern repeat itself over time and we wouldn't have spent so much money trying to control the weather.

By the way El Sol is still slumbering.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#10 Dec 8, 2013
Agreed, Global Warming is preferable to the alternatives.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#11 Dec 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
The oceans' decadal and multidecadal oscillations are what makes climate.
Again, your ignorance is obvious. What makes climate is the pattern of land and ocean geography along with the drive of equatorial heating vs polar heating. The climate is a heat engine, with dynamics that are dependent on things such as hadley cell circulation of the atmosphere, viscous drag on terrain, evaporation rates over water and land areas (heat of evaporation), etc. Mutlidecadal oscillations are an EFFECT of climate. A 'noise' such as any engine makes..
Fun Facts wrote:
During 'the warming' many scientists were called deniers because they pointed out that the oscillations were in positive modes therefore the climate would be warmer.
More BS. The 'pause' in AIR temperatures (actually just a slower warming trend line) is related to LA-NINO, a cooling phase.

Direct lies will not gain you any converts. It is too easy to check the ENSO state.
Fun Facts wrote:
Now that the climate is cooler the AGW scientists are telling us the oscillations are causing the heat to go elsewhere.
If you consider 'climate' which is air temperatures, yes, the AGW warming is going 'elsewhere'. Finally, you get it. I hope. They must have finally gotten to you that AGW is not declining but the climate oscillation is moving the heat into the ocean. Therefore hiding it from the meteorology trend line. I keep hoping that you will eventually learn to distinguish weather from climate and the 'global surface' from the meteorology graphs.
Fun Facts wrote:
But not to fear, the oscillations will again switch back and the climate will warm, duh.
Exactly. Noise is up or down but always cancels out because it is NOT a forcing or a signal. It is noise. An error in the 'signal' due to complicating factors.
Fun Facts wrote:
If the AGWs had just looked at history they would have seen the pattern repeat itself over time and we wouldn't have spent so much money trying to control the weather.
I know of nobody trying to 'control the weather'. The main point of AGW is to control the global average surface temperature to moderate the changes in the climate.
Fun Facts wrote:
By the way El Sol is still slumbering.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
The 200 year cycle in sunspot activity is on track. But you don't see a sunspot cycle in global temperature trends for the simple reason that this small variation doesn' have enough time to affect the global temperature much. It all evens or averages out. Actual change in solar output over centuries to millenia are needed to have much effect, though they are hoping to get some link between solar cycles changing the solar spectrum and the 'decadal' climate oscillations such as ENSO, PDO, etc. We are getting that good at climate studies to look for such minor effects.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#12 Dec 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, your ignorance is obvious. What makes climate is the pattern of land and ocean geography along with the drive of equatorial heating vs polar heating. The climate is a heat engine, with dynamics that are dependent on things such as hadley cell circulation of the atmosphere, viscous drag on terrain, evaporation rates over water and land areas (heat of evaporation), etc. Mutlidecadal oscillations are an EFFECT of climate. A 'noise' such as any engine makes..
<quoted text>
More BS. The 'pause' in AIR temperatures (actually just a slower warming trend line) is related to LA-NINO, a cooling phase.
Direct lies will not gain you any converts. It is too easy to check the ENSO state.
<quoted text>
If you consider 'climate' which is air temperatures, yes, the AGW warming is going 'elsewhere'. Finally, you get it. I hope. They must have finally gotten to you that AGW is not declining but the climate oscillation is moving the heat into the ocean. Therefore hiding it from the meteorology trend line. I keep hoping that you will eventually learn to distinguish weather from climate and the 'global surface' from the meteorology graphs.
<quoted text>
Exactly. Noise is up or down but always cancels out because it is NOT a forcing or a signal. It is noise. An error in the 'signal' due to complicating factors.
<quoted text>
I know of nobody trying to 'control the weather'. The main point of AGW is to control the global average surface temperature to moderate the changes in the climate.
<quoted text>
The 200 year cycle in sunspot activity is on track. But you don't see a sunspot cycle in global temperature trends for the simple reason that this small variation doesn' have enough time to affect the global temperature much. It all evens or averages out. Actual change in solar output over centuries to millenia are needed to have much effect, though they are hoping to get some link between solar cycles changing the solar spectrum and the 'decadal' climate oscillations such as ENSO, PDO, etc. We are getting that good at climate studies to look for such minor effects.
Less, you are clueless.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Dec 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I know of nobody trying to 'control the weather'. The main point of AGW is to control the global average surface temperature to moderate the changes in the climate.
I believe you.
What you know is apparent in each of your posts.
And what you call 'control the weather' is known by every science academy in the world as "mitigation" and is the ultimate goal of those who are afraid of the effects of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Disruption manifested in the form of
*More Hurricanes
*More severe Hurricanes
*More Tornadoes
*More severe Tornadoes
*Droughts and Floods etc.

Now we (with the apparent exception of 'Less') know that there is a general consensus that CO2 is the key to "mitigating' severe weather events.

Science understands the fundamental mechanics of Climate.
Though climate science is in it's infancy experts think they have sufficient knowledge to control the weather.(Of course they also say they need billions of $ for further research)

Right now there is a consensus that a single control mechanism can be applied to adjust our weather.

If we don't like the size of the tornadoes in a region there is an application of a scientific theory to make them less severe.
If we are unhappy about the numbers of tornadoes each year....
there's an application for that too.
Big Hurricanes? There's AN APP.
Floods...OR drought... AN APP.
Collapsing bridges in Minneapolis??? APP!!!
YES! The list goes on...
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.html
Just look at the hundreds of studies that all suggest "dialing down" the CO2 is the single application that will solve our climate woes.

People who profess their belief in the principles of Orthodox Climotology -attend:
Now is the time to stand fast in your faith of Our Climate Science.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#14 Dec 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Less, you are clueless.
Scientific data is apparently not the only signal with a lot of noise..
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#15 Dec 8, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Now we (with the apparent exception of 'Less') know that there is a general consensus that CO2 is the key to "mitigating' severe weather events.
No. But it is a consensus opinion that lowering GHG emissions is key to moderating climate change. We will have changes in climate for at least a century even if we stop AGW today (not likely). We cannot evade the damage that is already 'in the pipe'. The issue is not to 'control' the weather (or mitigate the climate) but to moderate the disturbance and thus give ourselves some room to adapt and less extreme conditions to adapt to.

Your silly 'strawman' is pretty much a spent force. What do you do now? Please rent a clue. Even if you have to think a bit. I know it is painful to start but it gets easier..

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr donaldtrump 10,135
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Hypocrite Hillary 61,520
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 8 hr don t drink the k... 3,304
News Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost A... 15 hr californio 182
News Extent of Arctic summer sea ice at record low l... (Sep '11) Wed Earthling too 117
AGW is a hoax! I did not, I do not say that! Wed Fair Game 2
Failed Predictions Wed Fair Game 2
More from around the web