It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing
Is there currently a pause in warming, and if not, why are scientists trying to explain it?
The "pause" is dependent upon certain data sets. Not all data sets show a pause. You can check this yourself using this tool.
There are 8 data sets: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid.
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
Some data sets disagree on which year was the hottest - 1998 was the hottest in RSS, while 2010 was the hottest in GISTEMP, as you can see in the previous post.
1998 1 0.47
1998 2 0.65
1998 3 0.42
1998 4 0.66
1998 5 0.56
1998 6 0.51
1998 7 0.44
1998 8 0.44
1998 9 0.33
1998 10 0.29
1998 11 0.08
1998 12 0.19
avg: 0.42
2015 1 0.36
2015 2 0.30
2015 3 0.25
2015 4 0.16
2015 5 0.32
2015 6 0.35
2015 7 0.24
2015 8 0.32
2015 9 0.38
2015 10 0.57
2015 11 0.47
2015 12 0.55
avg: 0.36
originally posted by: Devino
These satellite records show a mean global temperature increase over the last 36 years.
Source
New Reference for annual cycle 1981-2010
base period: 1951-1980
Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed
at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the
century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".
Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can
drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.
The climate forcing2 most often cited as a likely natural cause of global temperature change
Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6 departure from 1981-2010 baseline in °C
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven
Then don't look at his data. Don't use it at all.
Use Nasa's if you like. I myself prefer surface data. You will still find the "pause" when the rate of warming drastically reduces, even in the face of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
By the way, crow all you like at the rise in warmth in 2015. Its an El Nino year and the rise in warmth is not from CO2 but from the world's oceans giving up their heat to be dissapated in the atmosphere.
Tired of Control Freaks
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven
Jim Hansen speaking about the "pause"
www.columbia.edu...
Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed
at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the
century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".
Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can
drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.
The climate forcing2 most often cited as a likely natural cause of global temperature change
The largest climate forcing is caused by increasing greenhouse gases, principally CO2 (Fig. 5).
The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the
1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years8
. The decline is primarily a consequence of successful phaseout
of ozone-depleting gases and reduction of the growth rate of methane. Also, the airborne fraction of
fossil fuel CO2 emissions has declined and the forcing per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2
increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady
despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions.
The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aero
Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.
The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the
1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years8
A mature and strong El Niño is now present in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is likely to strengthen further. This year’s El Niño event is the strongest since 1997-1998 and is potentially among the four strongest events since 1950, according to the latest Update from the World Meteorological Organization.
The peak strength of this El Niño, expected sometime during October 2015 to January 2016. Its impacts are already evident in some regions and will be more apparent for at least the next 4-8 months.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven
First of all - that the current warming is unprecedented in history because the MWP was only regional, not global is a plank in the global warming religion.
Now it was always believed that the MWP was global in nature but when Micheal Mann did his hockey stick graph, it was then that it was proposed that the MWP was only regional in nature.
Examination of sediment cores in the Pacific and Antartic Oceans proved that not only was the MWP global in nature, it was hotter than the current warming.
science.sciencemag.org...
Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.
Now pay very close attention to that line about the role of ocean heat.
This goes to prove that the current global warming is not unprecedented and actually is within range of normal variability. Humans not only survived the MWP, it was a time of great properity.
The Little Ice Age followed the MWP. Not surprising, what goes up must come down.
"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.
After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
You are the one showing confirmation bias
Jim Hanson himself has stated that the rate of warming dropped drastically and changed the trend line. That has NOTHING to do with El Nino's.
www.columbia.edu...
The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the
1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years8
Are you paying attention at all?
The fact that the MWP had greater warming than current is evidenced all over the world by tree lines that went further north than the current tree lines. This merely serves to prove that the conclusions drawn from the examination of the sediment cores of the Pacific and Antartic Oceans correct as opposed to Micheal Mann's "Hide the Decline" Hockey Stick.
Now that is TWO, count them, TWO planks that support the global warming theory GONE. BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER!
As to your assertion that this year's El Nino is NOT as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino
www.wmo.int...
A mature and strong El Niño is now present in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is likely to strengthen further. This year’s El Niño event is the strongest since 1997-1998 and is potentially among the four strongest events since 1950, according to the latest Update from the World Meteorological Organization.
The peak strength of this El Niño, expected sometime during October 2015 to January 2016. Its impacts are already evident in some regions and will be more apparent for at least the next 4-8 months.
Are you following me so far?
Tired of Control Freaks
No, I just don't care to go with your context. CO2 forcing will have less of an impact as the amount of CO2 increases - this is well-known and has been discussed for decades. There's no surprise there. Each additional ppm will have less warming effect than the previous.
The earth has been here for billions of years, how many times was it MUCH warmer than it is now?
Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.
originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Greven
Oh, silly me! It looks like he uses a new data set based on whatever he pulled out of his thin air. Let's compare his new with his old:
Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6 departure from 1981-2010 baseline in °C
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
Wow, nice adjustment there Dr. Roy Spencer. Great work fiddling with those algorithms to increase the temperature of 1998 by 14% and decrease the temperature of 2015 by 25%.
Guess the numbers were edging too close between the two!
Why rely on the abstract when the article is available?
FROM THE ABSTRACT:
That would depend upon what layer you are talking about. Global sea surface temperatures are higher now than they were at any time in the past 10,000 years. It does not seem that the MWP was warmer than the present in the southern hemisphere, based on surface temperatures, however at deeper depths there is a better correlation in both hemispheres.
So if the Pacific and Antartic Oceans were warmer during the MWP then current temperatures, it proves that the MWP was both global in nature AND warmer then current temperatures
The comparison suggests that Pacific OHC was substantially higher during most of the Holocene than in the past decade (2000 to 2010), with the exception of the LIA. The difference is statistically significant, even if the OHC changes apply only to the western Pacific (~25% Pacific volume), although there are indications that similar trends extended farther east (15). The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3).
The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time.