Why has global warming stalled?

Jul 22, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: BBC News

With Britain's heatwave reaching a peak, there could be no better moment to talk about why global warming has slowed to a standstill.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 17 of17
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Answer. It hasn't. The total thermal content of the planets surface continues to absorb the retained heat of the greenhouse effect. But we are measuring one place while the heat is being stored elsewhere.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

"Why has global warming stalled?"

A likely explanation.....

'We the AGW scientists don't know. We created an equation that won't work. Our equation says there should be more heat, the heat is missing.

All of our projections are based on surface temperatures. When we say an increase of 2*C we mean the temperature will go up by 2*C. But it isn't.

Now we want to revise and say the 'thermal energy content' is what will increase. Since we really haven't measured that, we think we can tickle the equation to approximate that. But the heat is still missing.

So it must have gone into the oceans, oh no, this didn't happen before or the increases in the 1980s and 90s would not have happened if the oceans had absorbed the heat. You see the equation is right for the 80s and 90s when the oceans didn't absorb heat.

The equation began to fail when the oceans began to absorb heat about 15 years ago. No, we didn't measure heat absorption in the oceans at low depths until 2005.

Since we didn't measure it before 2005 we know this has just started that's why we can't find the heat. You know the oceans have only been on earth since... well that's not important. The sun has been earth's only source of heat since... no that's not important.

It just isn't possible that the oceans absorbed heat until now. The only way we know they are doing it now is because the temperatures have not gone up the way we predicted.

Our predictions are right, it's the fault of the oceans that they are not being realized.'

Right.
GEEWIZ

Versailles, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Easy answer.global warming is a fake bad joke,made by the green movement.
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cheezwhiz wrote:
Easy answer.global warming is a fake bad joke,made by the green movement.
Without working hard "cheezwhiz" doesn't have a mathematics & science education. After that, "cheezwhiz" finds lots of easy answers.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Without working hard "cheezwhiz" doesn't have a mathematics & science education. After that, "cheezwhiz" finds lots of easy answers.
I think he confused the 'green movement' with one of his 'bowel movements'. Hard to control at that age..

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Silly BBC: not listening to its own independent advice:
BBC science coverage is of "high quality and significant quantity", an independent review has found.

But the report, by genetics professor Steve Jones, said the BBC "must make a distinction between well-established fact and opinion".

Attempts at balance were giving "free publicity to marginal opinions", the BBC Trust-published report said.

.....

The report praised "a thriving and improving genre of programming which is well established across a wide range of BBC services".

Its accuracy was "exemplary", it added.

....

But it found that, where there was consensus on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" could lead to a "false balance".

This meant viewers "might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is".

Prof Jones cited issues including global warming, MMR vaccines and GM foods.

He said the BBC "still gives space" to global warming sceptics "to make statements that are not supported by the facts".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-...

3rd hootest May and 2nd hottest June? In an ENSO neutral year.

Claims of a stall are not supported by the facts.

Deniers like fun farts aka fossil fuels know this, but they're liars.

Shame the BBC is still buying the lie, rather than reporting the latest science.
Despite a large increase in heat being absorbed by the Earths climate system (oceans, land & ice), the first decade of the 21st century saw a slowdown in the rate of global surface warming (surface air temperatures).

A climate model-based study, Meehl (2011), predicted that this was largely due to anomalous heat removed from the surface ocean and instead transported down into the deep ocean. This anomalous deep ocean warming was later confirmed by observations.

This deep ocean warming in the model occurred during negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), an index of the mean state of the north and south Pacific Ocean, and was most likely in response to intensification of the wind-driven ocean circulation.

Meehl (2013) is an update to their previous work, and the authors show that accelerated warming decades are associated with the positive phase of the IPO. This is a result of a weaker wind-driven ocean circulation, when a large decrease in heat transported to the deep ocean allows the surface ocean to warm quickly, and this in turn raises global surface temperatures.

This modelling work, combined with current understanding of the wind-driven ocean circulation, implies that global surface temperaures will rise quickly when the IPO switches from the current negative phase to a positive phase.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/16/2...

So folks, when the next El Nino arrives and the trend turns positive, remember that the science said global warming hadn't stalled.

And when the oceans kick out the heat they've been storing up and temperatures go through the roof, remember that the science said global warming hadn't stalled.

And remember who lied to you.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Last year May and June were all time records for warmest month of land surface temperature. Maybe earth is cooling !

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21C (2.18F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07C (1.93F) above average.

If those are lies take it up with NOAA.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
Silly BBC: not listening to its own independent advice:
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-...
3rd hootest May and 2nd hottest June? In an ENSO neutral year.
Claims of a stall are not supported by the facts.
Deniers like fun farts aka fossil fuels know this, but they're liars.
Shame the BBC is still buying the lie, rather than reporting the latest science.
<quoted text>
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/16/2...
So folks, when the next El Nino arrives and the trend turns positive, remember that the science said global warming hadn't stalled.
And when the oceans kick out the heat they've been storing up and temperatures go through the roof, remember that the science said global warming hadn't stalled.
And remember who lied to you.
Still having a reading comprehension issue. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation will not change with the next El Nino.

The ENSO happens when the PDO is both negative and positive. The Next El Nino will occur during the negative phase. The result will be a less powerful El Nino because it occurs in the negative phase.

The next La Nina will occur during the negative phase and the result will be a stronger La Nina because of the PDO/IPO. When the PDO is in the negative phase the La Ninas are more frequent and more impactful.

Both will occur in the negative phase because the oscillations cycle is 25 to 30 years in duration.

The period of warming we just experienced was during the positive phase of the PDO, 1977 to 2002/7.

The period of warming was also during the highest levels of solar activity in the last 400 years of observations.

When solar activity is high, it enhances positive phases of the ocean oscillations. In this case it enhanced/made more impactful the ENSO positive phase and the El Ninos were more powerful and more frequent.

Now the PDO is in a negative phase. And solar activity is very low. The result for the ENSO is more La Ninas, and more powerful/impactful La Ninas. There will still be El Ninos, just as there were La Ninas in the positive phase, but the El Nino effect is mitigated under these circumstances.

If the La Ninas are cooling the temps, then the El Ninos had to have warmed them up.

...and contrary to some AGW posters, ENSO impacts both sides of the equator.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
Still having a reading comprehension issue.
We don't need your excuses. We know you distort, lie and misrepresent. Whether this is driven by dyslexia or ideology your reading problems are not relevant.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't need your excuses. We know you distort, lie and misrepresent..
LOL no excuses, the ocean oscillation known as the PDO/IPO has a cycle of 25 to 30 years. The ENSO is impacted by the positive or negative phase of the PDO. The oscillation is currently negative and will remain so for another 20 years or so.

Without any contextual frame of reference, Fair Game once again didn't understand what he was reading. I just cleared it up for him.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hahahahahaha
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
Silly BBC: not listening to its own independent advice:
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-...
3rd hootest May and 2nd hottest June? In an ENSO neutral year.
Claims of a stall are not supported by the facts.
Deniers like fun farts aka fossil fuels know this, but they're liars.
Shame the BBC is still buying the lie, rather than reporting the latest science.
<quoted text>
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/16/2...
So folks, when the next El Nino arrives and the trend turns positive, remember that the science said global warming hadn't stalled.
And when the oceans kick out the heat they've been storing up and temperatures go through the roof, remember that the science said global warming hadn't stalled.
And remember who lied to you.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Thanks for the review as well.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL no excuses, the ocean oscillation known as the PDO/IPO has a cycle of 25 to 30 years. The ENSO is impacted by the positive or negative phase of the PDO. The oscillation is currently negative and will remain so for another 20 years or so.
Without any contextual frame of reference, Fair Game once again didn't understand what he was reading. I just cleared it up for him.
With this group if the science doesn't agree with the agenda it isn't science. Myself, if I find someone giving odds on the next El Nino, I'm betting money temps wont be as high as 2010.

The notion of 4C warming has become a joke and 2C warming is hiding from the embarrassment.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 25, 2013
 
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
With this group if the science doesn't agree with the agenda it isn't science. Myself, if I find someone giving odds on the next El Nino, I'm betting money temps wont be as high as 2010.
I'll take that bet.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
With this group if the science doesn't agree with the agenda it isn't science. Myself, if I find someone giving odds on the next El Nino, I'm betting money temps wont be as high as 2010.
The notion of 4C warming has become a joke and 2C warming is hiding from the embarrassment.
That's the way it is.

Not much to worry about in Waverly.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/sho...
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the way it is.
Not much to worry about in Waverly.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/sho...
Those years around 1980 is why I hope that if we have a cooling trend it isn't significant. I was a teen so it didn't bother me much, we had some brutal cold winters for a few years however.

If you like football your familiar with the freezer bowl.

In NFL lore, the Freezer Bowl (January 10, 1982) was the 1981 AFC Championship Game between the San Diego Chargers and the Cincinnati Bengals. The game, won by the Bengals, 277, was played in the coldest temperature in NFL history in terms of wind chill.(The coldest in terms of air temperature was the Ice Bowl.) Air temperature was &#8722;9 F (&#8722;23 C), but the wind chill, factoring in a sustained wind of 27 miles per hour (43 km/h), was &#8722;37 F or &#8722;38 C (calculated as &#8722;59 F or &#8722;51 C using the now outdated wind chill formula in place at the time). The game was played at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium, and televised by NBC with announcers Dick Enberg and Merlin Olsen.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Well that should read air temp for the game was -9F with a wind chill of -37F.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 17 of17
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••