Is there even a "pause"? Has there been a statisically significant drop in the rate of warming?
And if there was, even I can say that it could be because of the Asian Brown Cloud, PDO or the yellow ball in the sky.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/fr...
Why would a scientist have any trouble, "explaining the pause"?
Hans von Storch is obviously one of the three percenters. He may be charge with justifying Germany's move away from nuclear power.
Yes, I did check your Google search link. Remember Dana1981?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cl...
And if I can explain the "pause," assuming that there even is one, a scientist can.
I'd rather compare him with James Hansen or Andrew Dessler, thank you very much. Or even better, perhaps I should compare him with Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.
Trevor writes: "The solar cycle bottomed out in 2009 at which point TSI was at record low levels. All previous known sunspot cycles reached lows of 1365.6W/m2 ±0.1 but the most recent one dropped to 1365.1W/m2 - way beyond the bounds of normal variability, even in a time of reducing solar activity, and most likely a consequence of the ABC."
Comment to Trevor: The TSI is what is measured ABOVE the atmosphere, so the ABC can't affect it. The TSI being "beyond the bounds of normal variability" cannot be "most likely a consequence of the ABC." It certainly may affect global average albedo but I don't see how it can impact the incident solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. To hammer this down, you are citing top of atmosphere numbers along the earth-sun line, so I know you can't be talking about anything other than prior to the atmosphere. Perhaps you could help me understand your conclusion about the ABC affecting the TSI? I must be misreading you or else this is the first time I've been taken aback by you.
EDIT AGAIN: Thanks for the clarification. Much better!
Climate change has an array of systems and sub systems. Some trend toward warming and some toward cooling. Some are powerful and some are weak and all of them are in operation at all times. Given the reality of this complexity the 'trend line' goes up and down like a bride's nightie. Yet the trend line is overall going up because of all of the factors currently in play. The continuous addition of CO2 into our paper thin atmosphere increases decade to decade...from 286ppm two hundred years ago to almost 400ppm today.
To actually answer this question would take several books with an incredible number of footnotes and a massive bibliography. There are such publications, but the math is usually beyond the ability of most of us. However we do know that volcanic activity can cause cooling over the short term as can contrails and large forest fires. Meanwhile the atmosphere warms slowly because the excess heat not expelled through a CO2 ladened atmosphere into space is absorbed by ice and seawater. That's why ice in the artic is rapidly thinning and melting and sea temperatures are rising. Climate change creeps on slowly, the same way that the tree line keeps creeping north under the push of slightly longer summers and slightly shorter winters.
As I demonstrated to Maxx before he banned me, the pause is associated with cherry picking. It is either taken from 1998, which is the strongest El Nino on record. that was 15 years ago. Most recently there has been a climate shift due to the switch from a positive PDO to a neutral or negative one.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.late...
This affects temperature variations at the surface as the oceans are one of the major factors in regional surface temperature variation trends. The claim of "the planet has been cooling since..." and using a time frame of 15 years or less is due specifically to these ENSO conditions. The claim that it has been cooling for 15 years is mentioned above. The claim that it has been cooling for 10 years is due to the fact that the strong ENSO conditions since about 2006/07 have brought the trend during that time ot below the baseline. If you take it 1 year longer you get a positive trend. If you chop the time frame into sections you get two positive trends. The reason why the years selected are showing a pause is because the years are cherry picked to show that pause. There has not been a pause. There has been a slowdown in the rate of warming due to what is considered noise.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/...
Most recently there has been a person in here claiming that there has not been any warming for 20 years. This is ridiculous as no related data sets show no warming for 20 years. For some odd reason, though, they continue to receive thumbs up for that claim.
As stated there is no pause but there is a slowdown. This is due to a number of factors. One of which is the negative PDO and the effects it has on the ENSO cycle. Another, which Trevor brings up, is the increase in atmospheric aerosols. There are numerous reasons why this occurred not just one singular reasons as that seems to be what you are looking for. Just as those that doubt anthropogenic climate change are looking for one singular reason for why the world is warming (ie: The Sun) when all factors and their trends need to be taken into account.
And the Google link you provided lists a bunch of news articles... Please tell me I don't have to explain to you the difference between a news article and a science journal or scientific data. Would you use FOX news as a basis for explaining why evolution is a scam or that there is still a debate about evolution?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/926328008001/...
Scientists are having trouble explaining the pause. This is because they do not know how the climate works yet. Some claim to know all about it and even say that science is settled. Others claim that all the relevant parameters are being fed into the models. Neither view is correct.
Some are explaining the pause by claiming that the heat is going into the oceans - so deep down that we cannot measure it. Originally they told us that global average surface temperature anomalies told us all we needed to know. Now they talk about heat. This sceptic has always thought that heat is a better measure. Global average surface temperature anomalies are basically nonsense. It is a bit like averaging telephone numbers and expecting to discover a great truth about the phone system.
Making up excuses as you go along is not good but if you do you need to remember the past as well. Why, previously, did the heat not go into the ocean? What caused the change in effect? Was the previous claimed warming due to heat coming out of the oceans and not CO2 after all? How did the heat get into the deep ocean without going into the shallow ocean first where we have thermometers?
Trevor approached the question as a singular concept, and yes aerosols do matter (basically scaled particulates). If I'm correct the last decade has seen a increase in such along with Saharan dust that also influences CO2 draw down, among other reactions. The increase in active growing biomass 11% ish, should also have some compensatory value. Then there's always the Alarmist generalization of uniformity...God help us if zoo and phytoplankton behave outside the means of speculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharan_Air...
That argument should be composed in the perspective of transition not emission. In a earlier response I gave you a link why the current accusation of warming may not be unprecedented.
The IP CC has always said that the climate was "chaotic and non-linear" and it seems that Pichauri (IP CC's fearless leader) is starting to accept this premise. There's too much backlash at this time to push the issue. It seems that climate scientists are taking a step backwards thinking that they missed something.
It's a very complex situation, but it is my hope that something towards a more positive outlook on the situation can be found instead of the "doom and gloom" scenario that has been presented in the past.
Mike,
Dispensing with accepted practices means we can declare a pause in global warming over the last 10 years or so, if we take a 5 year running average then we’re presently around the same temps as in 2003/4.
There are certain factors we know are contributing to the pause, including the emissions of cooling agents from China and India. Many of these pollutants are the same ones we used to emit before the passing of the Clean Air Acts, they include black particulate matter, sulphur dioxide and other aerosols.
The effect has been to create a cloud of pollution so dense and large that it’s visible from space, as seen in this image:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/as...
The cloud itself, colloquially known as the Asian Brown Cloud (ABC), is blocking out sunlight, and the aerosols and particulates within the cloud are reflecting solar energy back out to space.
One of the problems scientists have is that this cloud began forming in about 2002, the same time as total solar irradiance (TSI) began to decline as part of the natural sunspot cycle, separating the effect of one from the other is difficult.
The solar cycle bottomed out in 2009 at which point TSI was at record low levels. Previous cycles reached lows of 1365.6W/m2 ±0.1 but the most recent one dropped to 1365.1W/m2. A quarter of this energy reaches Earth’s surface and the result was a drop is solar forcing of about 0.25W/m2 across the full cycle as opposed to the normal 0.20W/m2.
So whilst we can say that the ABC is definitely a factor, it’s hard to say just how much influence it has had. We need more full solar cycles before we can reliably identify the ABC fingerprint.
Another thing be consider are the Great Salinity Anomalies (GSAs). Previously it was though these could also have been influenced by atmospheric aerosols, the problem is a lack of correlation – aerosols levels slowly increased then decreased but the GSA’s, whilst the timings coincided with aerosol fluctuations, had a much sharper lead-in and lead-out period.
Whilst aerosols coupled with an unidentified factor could be the cause, it seems more likely that GSA’s are a consequence of something happening deep within the oceans.
The most recent GSA occurred during the 1970’s at a time when global warming should have been more pronounced. The atmospheric dimming component in the preceding 30 years had largely been removed (via the CAA’s) and global warming should have kicked off in about 1970, as it was there was little movement until about 1980.
During this 10 year pause the GSA cooled the Atlantic by some 0.3°C allowing more heat to flow from the atmosphere to the ocean.
There’s a lot of debate about just how much GSA’s can influence global temperatures but the signature rapid cooling does correlate well with recent average global temperatures. It’s a similar problem as before, if the ABC were the only factor then there should have been a gradual slowing in the rate of warming, instead there is a pronounced slowing from ~2003 onwards.
It’s the fact that the change is so sudden that’s the problem. If it were changes in TSI, aerosol accumulation, atmospheric variability, radiative forcing, feedbacks etc then the change would have been gradual.
Where we do find more pronounced changes are in the oceans. ENSO is an obvious one but there are many longer-term oscillations that quite swiftly change from one phase to another – often in a matter of months as opposed to years.
For now all we can say is that the ABC is certainly a factor (magnitude unknown, anywhere from 30% to 95%) and so too is the natural decline in sunspot numbers (no more than 5%). But also that there are probably other things involved as well, quite possible concerning oceanic oscillations (anything up to 65%). Other unidentified factors could also have a small (up to 20%) role to play.
ADDED…
OM: Valid points, and yes, we may see a cooling trend in the years to come.
IAN: Climates are very complex and there is a lot we don’t know, that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about them. The science of global warming is very basic, this much has been known since the 19th century.
JONATHAN: Thanks, my original answer was confusing, it read as if the reduction in TSI was because of the ABC, rather than being as well as the ABC. TSI is measured at 100km up, which as you said, is above where ABC could affect it. The ABC affects irradiance at ground level (as does TSI variation). Have edited original answer to make more sense.
SAGEBRUSH: Yet again… the Sun provides the heat, it is NOT the sole driver of climate change, it shouldn’t be hard to grasp this simple concept.
They are not struggling, you simply grew out of the ability to understand the mindset that would compare the effects of an increased in CO2 to the introduction of poison into someone's glass of water. You understand the difference between the 2 so the analogy sounds ridiculous and childish. It is simple really, just think back when you were certain there was monster under your bed, you never had evidence but the possibility frightened you enough you leaped to the door everytime you got out of bed at night. Uncertainty and the fear of the unknown simply effect children differently.
Because it doesn't fit in with the greenie agenda. A true dyed in the wool greenie would rather slit his or her throat than admit they were wrong.
They are still trying a way to blame Bush.
< This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.">
Translated that means, "We don't know what the 'H' is going on. But we are send up some trial balloons and see if any one flies. Right now it is the missing heat. It is so complicated that even Jeff M doesn't understand it. We are certain Trevor can think up some lies that will side us over this one. The Grifter already has a statement saying 'If we don't know then 97% of all scientists don't know either, and they say they know. So that means we know but we can't explain it you lower minded idiots. You just gotta believe.' The Dork never did understand anything but some sucker will give BAs anyway. Don't worry, World. By the time the next assessment report comes out we will be loaded for bear. (Where is that Goebbels blueprint again?)."
EDIT TREVOR:
The result was a drop is solar forcing of about 0.25W/m2 across the full cycle as opposed to the normal 0.20W/m2.
So whilst we can say that the ABC is definitely a factor, it’s hard to say just how much influence it has had. We need more full solar cycles before we can reliably identify the ABC fingerprint.>
Ha! Ha! So it is the Sun after all. Now will you believe us? You should have saved all that college money and took a cheap course from us true scientists and you could have skipped all that communistic clap trap. Ha! Ha!
In a question I asked yesterday, that was a return question back at me and it's a good one. I think I know the answer so I'll open it up to everyone.
Please check Google before you start: https://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENCA242&q=climate+explaining+the+pause&oq=climate+explaining+the+pause&gs_l=igoogle.3...4434.14333.0.14487.29.17.0.0.0.0.162.162.0j1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.igoogle.BmdRRuqdU2g
So there are two basic questions here. Is the "pause" in global warming generally acknowledged and are scientists struggling to explain it (based either on the above Google search or your own investigation)?
It is obvious they are struggling because the hypothesis is wrong, they have always known that CO2 has limited warming effects but had hypothesized that the small amount of warming caused by CO2 would increase water vapor in the atmosphere and this water vapor would increase warming, however it just didn't work out, as water vapor can have negative feedbacks as well as positive feedbacks.
A true scientist wouldn't have trouble, they'd just say their theory is wrong. But what we have here is a political movement with so much hype and worthless (for altering weather) policies in place that they no longer dare to speak the truth, the backlash would be huge. So many alarmists have supported the scam that to back down now for them, would be akin to self abuse and a confession to their intellectual short comings.
I've noticed the difficulty the alarmists here have explaining/denying the pause as well. The alarmist desperately want to spread fear and lies to get people on their side. Their main focus was claiming that man made C02 directly causes temperatures to rise. They manipulated temperature data expertly for the longest time but unfortunately for them you can only do that for so long. I believe they are near their peak in coming up with excuses to adjust temperatures higher (I think Hansen realized this and decided to retire).
Although many alarmists such as HeyDook and Baccheus have completely disassociated themselves from reality ("There is NO pause in Global Warming" group) some of them know they can't deny the facts any longer ("Sure there IS a pause in Global Warming, but it's caused by missing heat hiding in the deep ocean where unfortunately we can't measure it...volcanoes that never let out emissions before 1970...the Chinese...your momma...etc" group).
Both groups have the same goal in mind, that is to spread fear through lies. To appease the other group, some alarmists actually combine both arguments and are apparently completely ignorant of the contradiction (the "There is NO pause in Global Warming. But it IS caused by missing heat hiding in the deep ocean where unfortunately we can't measure it...volcanoes that never let out emissions before 1970...the Chinese...your momma...etc" group).
I think most Climate "Scientists" know where their funding comes from. They know there IS a pause in temperatures rising while man made C02 emissions continue to go up but they don't want to publicly acknowledge the fact in fear of losing grant money. For monetary reasons they are in the "There is NO pause in Global Warming. But it IS caused by missing heat hiding in the deep ocean where unfortunately we can't measure it...volcanoes that never let out emissions before 1970...the Chinese...your momma...etc" group.
Trends have pauses.
Because they are not scientists.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/gra...
:)
