New Study Acknowledges Temperature Hiatus, Blames Volcanoes!

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Ever since it was first recognized as a real phenomenon, the “pause” in global temperature increases (and increasing divergence from climate model projections), has been wished-away by the die-hard faithful, or explained-away by speculative grant-mongers, despite a complete lack of evidence, as migrating to the deep ocean waters.

Now, a new “study” not only accepts and reinforces the reality of the model-defying hiatus, but attempts to explain it away, at least in part, as the result of vulcanism.
Someone needs to call John Kerry and his boss, and let them in on the secret: natural processes are driving temperature movement on Earth!

The article reported in Nature Geoscience also goes further, acknowledging decreased solar radiance and insolation as part of the explanation:


” Small volcanic eruptions help explain a hiatus in global warming this century by dimming sunlight and offsetting a rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases to record highs, a study showed on Sunday.
Eruptions of at least 17 volcanoes since 2000 … ejected sulfur whose sun-blocking effect had been largely ignored until now by climate scientists, it said.
The pace of rising world surface temperatures has slowed since an exceptionally warm 1998, heartening those who doubt that an urgent, trillion-dollar shift to renewable energies from fossil fuels is needed to counter global warming.”

Sun-dimming volcanoes partly explain global warming hiatus

But wait, there’s more! The paper’s authors not only acknowledge the lack of significant temperature rise despite explosive growth in CO2 emissions, they look to other factors, including solar irradiance as possible explanations for the models’ miserable failures to anticipate the lack of warming to match the CO2 rise.


"This is a complex detective story," said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes.
"Volcanoes are part of the answer but there's no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus," he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts.”


A “complex detective story?
Didn’t those eminent “climate scientists,” Gore, LKerry and Obama just tell the U.S. and the world that we all must be punished with 40% higher energy costs because “the science is settled?”

Apparently, Dr. Santer and his colleagues from across the globe didn’t hear or weren’t listening.

“Santer said other factors such as a decline in the sun's output, linked to a natural cycle of sunspots, or rising Chinese emissions of sun-blocking pollution could also help explain the recent slowdown in warming.
The study suggested that volcanoes accounted for up to 15 percent of the difference between predicted and observed warming this century. All things being equal, temperatures should rise because greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated highs.”


Of course, there will be AGW fanatics who will contend that this is misunderstood or disinformation from the “skeptics.” Unfortunately for the faithful, the article itself gives a summation that should erase their denial of fact and science:

“Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming.”

www.nature.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.nature.com...

This will be discounted by the acolytes, priests and faithful of the AGW grant-mongering class, who will continue to scream that “the science is settled,” and that “the consensus” must always be right to assist in their denial of reality and the increasing evidence of factors other than mankind in the changing climate.

jw
edit on 23-2-2014 by jdub297 because: volcanism




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The fact that volcanoes, solar activity, and other variables are not accounted for in AGW models, just prove how little science is behind this scam.
I'm not saying human kind isn't playing a part here, but the Earth has survived far worse, and it will survive anything we throw at it.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
That's what happens when your paid to "study" something. Crooks.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Bottom like:

when you disagree - sook.
when you agree - gloat.

? either way it's just people talking. you're the one who is ultimately up to how you feel, man.. Oo



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
What it goes to show is the complex variables that make up the global climate system.

Climate change emus need to look at the following factors;

The Jet stream

The North Atlantic current

Volcanism

These will explain the hiatus in global temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere. Meanwhile in Australia 2013 was the hottest year on record.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 





The Jet stream

The North Atlantic current

Volcanism

These will explain the hiatus in global temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere.


What's going on with the Jet Stream and the North Atlantic current and what explains the 'hiatus' in the Southern Hemisphere?



climexp.knmi.nl...@somewhere

edit on 24-2-2014 by talklikeapirat because: linkfix



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
nothing to see here, move on...


I think its only relevant because they are going to make a move to make you pay for it, all the while not actually doing anything. kind of like california smog test. lol













posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I work with physical models all the time -- models which actually have a lot of real science in them. When fit properly, they do predict increases, decreases, and steady states extremely well. The climate "models" are basically just hot air. They aren't very good as physical models go and are loaded with "tuning" parameters which replace real science with pie in the sky guesses. As far as I can tell, none actually even model what CO2 does or what any other forcing factors actually do. It's total garbage from beginning to end.

With tuning parameters, it is not hard to get any randomly chosen thing which is steadily increasing (eg: # of people drinking bottled water) to "predict" temperature increases. It's basically a case of matching slopes over many years by choosing a suitable multiplier -- and then making excuses to overlook places where the "fit" wasn't so good. Excuses are abundant with the entire Earth and Sun to look at for causes. Of course these guys want to pretend these models are real science, so instead of choosing just one parameter and forcing factor (which would probably do as well or better than the complex "climate models" ), they play with a bunch of different parameters. If a parameter, like CO2 heat capacity, is given too much weight, they can compensate by under-weighting or even negatively weighting some other parameter(s). The current "climate models" only have to produce the same overall behavior (increasing) at about the same rate as the long term slope of temperatures to be considered a success for propaganda purposes. The average person not working in the discipline have no idea what is really going on inside the "climate models."

Consensus means nothing -- only objective success under all conditions matters. It's when the temperature fails to increase and the model predictions still forecast increases that one should realize the "predictions" are worthless. If the equivalent happened with the physical models I work with, we would KNOW someone (scientist or engineer) made a huge error. A fitted model that is worth using simply works as is. It will track ups, downs, peaks, valleys, and stalls with very small error.

Physical models, real models, don't need excuses. Ever. You can look at them and know before you ever use them whether they cover the assumptions. They match what happens or are invalid for the assumptions -- validity / invalidity is known beforehand. You don't run them, see what happens, and then make excuses when a prediction is wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


There is no hiatus in the southern hemisphere (not in Australia anyway)



The La Nina shift helped a bit for one summer, but we are back on the path to warmness,

en.wikipedia.org...

*edit* My apologies, I did not answer your question re the Jetstream and the North Atlantic current. To avoid repeating myself, have a look at this thread where both are discussed, with a link to thread from 2010 re the North Atlantic current.

edit on 24-2-2014 by markosity1973 because: Fully answer questions



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Really? there's a problem with the climate? and any SANE and REASONABLE person should care why? Oh, because the United States is responsible. Gotcha.
How about addressing something that we can do something about and something that needs to be taken care of as soon as possible. realizing that the Earth is DOOMED. It's already dead. proven science versus politically motivated fear mongering. that's what we should be working on, and not keeping all that tasty dolphin out of canned tuna.

times running out for everybody. god promised he's gonna roast this planet. thanks for the heads up big guy! the Universe is designed to exterminate life. Unless you can stay on the run. cruising the Cosmos and harvesting planets? it's what we were meant to do. the bible even says so. go forth and multiply. and if we meet any resistance from "aliens". exterminate them.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


No-ones models are working as expected because;

a) What actually drives our weather systems is not yet fully understood. It is known that the oceans are where most of the weather is created, but the jet stream is what moves it around. Both we are still learning about how they interact and in particular with the jet stream we need to learn a lot more.

b) Unforseen variables like Mt Unpronouncable in Iceland blowing its stack and releasing huge amounts of ash into the atmohspere, causing a global drop in temperatures and the North Atlantic current faltering, causing freak winters in Northern Europe and East Coast USA



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 






There is no hiatus in the southern hemisphere (not in Australia anyway)


There's only Australia in the Southern Hemisphere?



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Link to refute the hiatus theory, explaining where it started and why it is wrong here



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Systems Theory.



Life's complicated.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

markosity1973
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 

There is no hiatus in the southern hemisphere (not in Australia anyway)
The La Nina shift helped a bit for one summer, but we are back on the path to warmness,
en.wikipedia.org...
*edit* My apologies, I did not answer your question re the Jetstream and the North Atlantic current. To avoid repeating myself, have a look at this thread where both are discussed, with a link to thread from 2010 re the North Atlantic current.


Repeat the info for 1997 through 2013 and let's look again, or did you mean to mislead?

That is information for a single year.
That has nothing to do with trends or hiatus or anything except the 1 year, alone.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

talklikeapirat
reply to post by markosity1973
 






There is no hiatus in the southern hemisphere (not in Australia anyway)


There's only Australia in the Southern Hemisphere?


It's only ONE YEAR in Australia in the Southern Hemisphere (where it is summer during our winter).
This is intentional deception or complete obliviousness; and neither serve the purpose he intended.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
i have found the culprit in AGW! really it's right here:

wattsupwiththat.com...


Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.


That from the U.N's I.P.C.C. plainly stating emphatically that the purpose of international GW action is redistribution of wealth and is not about global climate policy.


(There. that ties that up nicely.)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

markosity1973
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Link to refute the hiatus theory, explaining where it started and why it is wrong here


Fail.

If you don't understand the site, or the actual numbers upon which the University of East Anglia, MET, James Hansen, NASA, NOAA the Univ. of Colorado and multitude others agree, then you should just not post at all.

It is no longer "skeptics" posting this, but AGW faithful in increasing numbers trying to make it go away.
Trenberth, Hansen and others are desperately looking for something, anything, to make the pause go away: deep oceans (no evidence), Chinese soot (ridiculously absent evidence), Atlantic or Pacific Oscillations (contrary to observation), and now 17 years worth of volcanoes.

All these AGW high priests know it and fear it;
but YOU choose to say, "I Don't see it. It doesn't exist."

Better tell the IPCC, because they are spending other peoples' money trying to figure out how to explain the pause away, as are Jim Hansen, Phil Jones, and many other of your priests.

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 24-2-2014 by jdub297 because: you



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
actually you know why Australia is hot and dry? it's because when it drifted far enough away from Antarctica the ocean currents that once made for lush rainfall changed and it went from lush forests to ever dryer dessert over a period of geological time. and it's still moving heading towards Asia if i recall correctly. the upshot is in a few million years it will be lush again when it redirects ocean currents in it's future location.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

randomtangentsrme
The fact that volcanoes, solar activity, and other variables are not accounted for in AGW models, just prove how little science is behind this scam.
I'm not saying human kind isn't playing a part here, but the Earth has survived far worse, and it will survive anything we throw at it.

Some things just go without saying.

The biggest driver behind the Catastrophic AGW phenomenon is that some very smart people are convinced that they, or we, can have an immediate and lasting impact upon the Earth. Hubris.

None of the AGW faithful will come out and say that the present temperature is the Earth's optimum, or even its average.
It's the one we like the most; so we will steal, lie, scream and fight to keep the thermometer just where it is.
Does anyone else see how foolish this idea/philosophy is on its face?

We are insignificant, and whatever we have done, or do tomorrow, will mostly be gone in 10,000 years.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join