New Study Acknowledges Temperature Hiatus, Blames Volcanoes!

reply to post by markosity1973


No . . . . I directly quoted the scientist . . . . .

No, the Earth is not a closed system as I linked directly to evidence of such in my post.

Are you really defending the models for not incorporating a known trend which had been occurring for 20+ years, 20+ YEARS?

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The Atmosphere’s Energy Budget

Just as the incoming and outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface must balance, the flow of energy into the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal flow of energy out of the atmosphere and back to space. Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59 percent of the incoming solar energy. If the atmosphere is radiating this much, it must be absorbing that much. Where does that energy come from?

Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy. Evaporation and convection transfer 25 and 5 percent of incoming solar energy from the surface to the atmosphere. These three processes transfer the equivalent of 53 percent of the incoming solar energy to the atmosphere. If total inflow of energy must match the outgoing thermal infrared observed at the top of the atmosphere, where does the remaining fraction (about 5-6 percent) come from? The remaining energy comes from the Earth’s surface.
The Natural Greenhouse Effect

Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface.

Even if estimates are approx 12%, that is so incredibly far above the threshold for EVER considering a system closed.

The Earth's atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.
www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect2.html


Don't try and BS me with that crap.

-FBB

reply to post by Phage

Science functions by adjusting theory to match data. That's how it works.
Computer models are refined by adjusting them to match real world data. That's how it works.

That may be true in general, but as applied to GCMs and "climate scientists" they are adjusting the data as well as the models to fit pre-existing bias.

With regards to "the pause" that you and many AGW myth deniers refuse to acknowledge, "climate scientists" have thus far come up with at least 9 different "theories" to coordinate their models, biases and manipulated "data;" including shifts in the ocean currents, 20 years of un-considered volcanic eruptions, lower output from the sun, increased Chinese particulate and aerosol pollution, there is no pause, previously un-considered "trade winds," the '97-'98 El Nino "tipped" the Pacific into a cold state, and natural variations.

Thus far 111 of 114 "models" completely failed to account for any hiatus at all, the other 3 were off as well, but didn't show the expected .21C/decade of warming the models and IPCC convinced their acolytes were the most likely result of the huge increase in CO2 emissions over the last 30 years.

Science functions by discarding theory that cannot be proven by experimentation or cannot be falsified, but "climate scientists" instead grope for excuses and hypothetical "explanations."

Then again, which of these explain the pause between 1940 and 1975?

reply to post by jdub297

they are adjusting the data as well as the models to fit pre-existing bias.

What adjusting of data? There are different ways of calculating global temperatures, what data has been adjusted?

With regards to "the pause" that you and many AGW myth deniers refuse to acknowledge,

Please point out where I have not acknowledged a pause in warming? Perhaps the problem is actually that warming deniers are talking a short term viewpoint on a long term situation.

Thus far 111 of 114 "models" completely failed to account for any hiatus at all, the other 3 were off as well,

Yes. Because, as pointed out, the models don't do well with short term, internal phenomena. Short term pauses are not important. What is important is the long term. Temperature anomalies measured in 2012 fell within earlier model predictions. In the long term, the models are accurate within their levels of uncertainty.

In summary, the trend in globally averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections. During the last decade the trend in the observations is smaller than the mean of the projections of AR4 (see Section 9.4.1, Box 9.2 for a detailed assessment of the hiatus in global mean surface warming in the last 15 years). As shown by Hawkins and Sutton (2009), trends in the observations
during short-timescale periods (decades) can be dominated by natural variability in the Earth’s climate system. Similar episodes are also seen in climate model experiments (Easterling and Wehner, 2009). Due to their experimental design these episodes cannot be duplicated with the same timing as the observed episodes in most of the model simulations; this affects the interpretation of recent trends in the scenario evaluations (Section 11.2). Notwithstanding these points, there is evidence that early forecasts that carried formal estimates of uncertainty have proved highly consistent with subsequent observations (Allen et al., 2013). If the contributions of solar variability, volcanic activity and ENSO are removed from the observations the remaining trend of surface air temperature agree better with the modelling studies (Rahmstorf et al., 2012).

www.climatechange2013.org...

Then again, which of these explain the pause between 1940 and 1975?

Mostly the post war industrial boom was contributing a lot of sulphates to the troposphere. There was also the Agung eruption in 1963. It pumped sulphates into the stratosphere and put a dip in temperatures, adding to the anthropogenic dimming.