• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Pause Is Back, and a New Paper Suggests Why

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just in time for the holidays, The Pause has returned. A new paper suggests The Pause is a result of negative feedback generated by warming. If so, that would put climate sensitivity at the extreme low end of current models, or lower.

The Pause Returns – Bigger, Better and with a New Partner

Posted on 23 Nov 16 by JAIME JESSOP • 3 Comments
It’s back. The Pause has returned – at least it has in the satellite data over land. Sea surface temperatures are currently cooling quite rapidly and we can expect the global surface temperature Pause, or Hiatus, to re-establish itself some time in 2017. Which is not good news for climate change alarmists, especially coming … Continue reading →

It’s back. The Pause has returned – at least it has in the satellite data over land. Sea surface temperatures are currently cooling quite rapidly and we can expect the global surface temperature Pause, or Hiatus, to re-establish itself some time in 2017. Which is not good news for climate change alarmists, especially coming on top of all the other bad news emanating from the political sphere. The latest talk is that arch climate denier Trump will starve NASA’s environmental science division of funding and plow the money into space exploration instead. Terrible. Gavin will not be happy.
What is interesting (to me at least, putting aside the politics for a change) is that decent science is now emerging to expand upon the current long list of excuses for the Pause, or Hiatus, or slowdown . . . .

So, rather than ‘excuses’ which suggest a temporary slowdown in surface warming, we now have a scientific paper which actually posits a quite reasonable argument for believing that the Pause is a real, physical phenomenon, and not an insignificant one in terms of current and future climate change projections and hence climate change policy. A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect, Song, Wang, Tang, 2016:
The rate at which the global average surface temperature is increasing has slowed down since the end of the last century. . . . . .The atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect over the tropical monsoon-prone regions is found to contribute substantially to the global total. Furthermore, the downward tendency of cloud activity leads to a greenhouse effect hiatus after the early 1990s, prior to the warming pause. Additionally, this pause in the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the high number of La Niña events between 1991 and 2014. A strong La Niña indicates suppressed convection in the tropical central Pacific that reduces atmospheric water vapor content and cloud volume. This significantly weakened regional greenhouse effect offsets the enhanced warming influence in other places and decelerates the rising global greenhouse effect. This work suggests that the greenhouse effect hiatus can be served as an additional factor to cause the recent global warming slowdown. . . . . .We represent an alternative pathway of internal variability driving the warming slowdown. A La Niña-like state suppresses convection in the tropical central Pacific and concomitantly reduces cloud coverage. Consequently, a zero-trend greenhouse effect is achieved under the balance of its primary contributors (e.g. water vapor, clouds, and GHGs). Finally, the hiatus of the greenhouse effect-driven warming leads to the recent global warming slowdown, in which the atmosphere traps (emits) near constant heat from (to) the surface. . . .


 
And furthermore:

Another study published on November 8th must be even more worrying for climate alarmists – worrying in the more mundane sense that is, as they are, obviously, constantly consumed by a more esoteric and far-reaching concern for the future of the planet. This paper suggests that the earth system is actually responding to increasing anthropogenic CO2 by absorbing it at an enhanced rate. . . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
This paper suggests that the earth system is actually responding to increasing anthropogenic CO2 by absorbing it at an enhanced rate. . . . .[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Increased CO2 makes plants grow like crazy, ask me how I know..

I would be a blessing on humanity for the truth to be that CO2 is not a problem..

I myself don't really believe either side, but we should all pray that man made global warming is wrong or atleast negligible, for the sake of humanity..
 
Jack Hays said:
Just in time for the holidays, The Pause has returned. [snipped for length]
Click to expand...

That puts a stake in the heart of Trenberth's theory concerning ocean heating for the time being. He hypothesized that earth temps would establish a new, higher baseline after the El Nino event reflecting the manifestation of all the heat energy the ocean stored up during the pause. But then there was never any good evidence that the ocean was storing up a lot of heat energy, just model evidence. Of course, we'll have to wait to see if this really is the baseline.

It looks like the much maligned "iris" theory of negative climate feedback might be correct after all.
 
Did the pause ever leave? Depends on what you look at:

156fl8y.jpg
 
Steve Case said:
Did the pause ever leave? Depends on what you look at:

156fl8y.jpg
Click to expand...

Why yes, if you narrow your dataset to 2 percent of the earths surface and then cherry pick the data points, you can certainly come up with a flat trend
 
Deuce said:
Why yes, if you narrow your dataset to 2 percent of the earths surface and then
cherry pick the data points, you can certainly come up with a flat trend
Click to expand...

Is picking summer temperatures when the topic is "hottest ever" a cherry pick?

By the same token is picking Maximum temperatures a cherry pick?

Is deciding that summer includes June 21st and September 21st a cherry pick?

Is picking the entire United States when that's all that Climate at a Glance has detailed data for a cherry pick?

You know, our wonderful unbiased press when they tell us about "Climate Change" tells
us about average annual temperature and shows us images of dry cracked earth, dead
livestock and a blazing midsummer sun:

Cow-Dead-623065.jpg


I'm just asking what the temperature trend is for midsummer afternoons. When Johnny
Carson says, "It was a scorcher today." and the audience responds, "How hot was it?"
they aren't asking about the average temperature.

Weather stations record the high and the low, it doesn't make a lot of sense to ignore
those two values in favor of an average that really doesn't convey a great deal of information.
The fact is, as the IPCC tells us, the warming is at night, in the winter and in the higher latitudes.
And as it turns out it's the low temperatures that are warming up, warmer nights and warmer
winter, and as I've pointed out, the summer maximums are on a decline. In other words,
the climate, for the United States at least, is becoming milder. The people that tell us that
extreme weather is going to be the new norm are going to have to say extreme mildness.
 
LowDown said:
That puts a stake in the heart of Trenberth's theory concerning ocean heating for the time being. He hypothesized that earth temps would establish a new, higher baseline after the El Nino event reflecting the manifestation of all the heat energy the ocean stored up during the pause. But then there was never any good evidence that the ocean was storing up a lot of heat energy, just model evidence. Of course, we'll have to wait to see if this really is the baseline.

It looks like the much maligned "iris" theory of negative climate feedback might be correct after all.
Click to expand...

Ocean heating has far more to do with atmospheric transparency and solar changes, than greenhouse gasses.

The radioactive spectra of CO2 and H2O are very well absorbed in the first few microns of water. Because of this, the heat is very rapidly returned to the atmosphere. Though there is convection heating of the water below, it is a small percentage of the change. Changes in wind speeds modulate the velocity of the latent heat absorption. Shortwave, however, acts differently than longwave. The water is very transparent to visible and shorter wavelengths. Therefore, it completely absorbs what isn't reflected. Since the majority of this is several meters down, it well mixes the heat in the ocean, and takes a very long time to lose heat to the atmosphere compared to heating from longwave.

The groupthink of these notable climatologists is that CO2 is the cause of nearly all AGW, and that simply is wrong. Atmospheric transparency is a large factor, especially for the flux of ocean heat. The transparency is driven by natural and anthropogenic aerosols.

I believe they see the correlation of fossil fuel burning and warming, and forget this burning produces aerosols too.

I'm pretty confident that newer papers are starting to support the Iris theory pretty good. I keep meaning to find it again, but there is a recent paper that shows dramatic negative forcing from clouds.
 
Orly? said:
Increased CO2 makes plants grow like crazy, ask me how I know..

I would be a blessing on humanity for the truth to be that CO2 is not a problem..

I myself don't really believe either side, but we should all pray that man made global warming is wrong or atleast negligible, for the sake of humanity..
Click to expand...

I don't see any significant trouble with the higher end of the IPCC's predictions. Why do you think we need to avoid it at all?
 
Tim the plumber said:
I don't see any significant trouble with the higher end of the IPCC's predictions. Why do you think we need to avoid it at all?
Click to expand...
My guess is he believes fiction like "The day After Tomorrow," and/or is young, and a victim of indoctrination being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" in school.
 
Steve Case said:
Is picking summer temperatures when the topic is "hottest ever" a cherry pick?

By the same token is picking Maximum temperatures a cherry pick?

Is deciding that summer includes June 21st and September 21st a cherry pick?

Is picking the entire United States when that's all that Climate at a Glance has detailed data for a cherry pick?

You know, our wonderful unbiased press when they tell us about "Climate Change" tells
us about average annual temperature and shows us images of dry cracked earth, dead
livestock and a blazing midsummer sun:

Cow-Dead-623065.jpg


I'm just asking what the temperature trend is for midsummer afternoons. When Johnny
Carson says, "It was a scorcher today." and the audience responds, "How hot was it?"
they aren't asking about the average temperature.

Weather stations record the high and the low, it doesn't make a lot of sense to ignore
those two values in favor of an average that really doesn't convey a great deal of information.
The fact is, as the IPCC tells us, the warming is at night, in the winter and in the higher latitudes.
And as it turns out it's the low temperatures that are warming up, warmer nights and warmer
winter, and as I've pointed out, the summer maximums are on a decline. In other words,
the climate, for the United States at least, is becoming milder. The people that tell us that
extreme weather is going to be the new norm are going to have to say extreme mildness.
Click to expand...

When talking about global changes, perhaps including the other 98% of the globe is wise? Just my suggestion.
 
Threegoofs said:
Wasn't discussing the OP...mostly because the OP is such a joke, it's not worth commenting on.

The pause is on again! (In this small section of the data!)
Click to expand...

Really?


Article | OPEN
[h=1]A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect[/h]


Received:17 February 2016Accepted:24 August 2016Published online:12 September 2016



[FONT=&quot][h=2]Abstract[/h]The rate at which the global average surface temperature is increasing has slowed down since the end of the last century. This study investigates whether this warming hiatus results from a change in the well-known greenhouse effect. Using long-term, reliable, and consistent observational data from the Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere (TOA), two monthly gridded atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters (Ga and Gs) are estimated to represent the radiative warming effects of the atmosphere and the surface in the infrared range from 1979 to 2014. The atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect over the tropical monsoon-prone regions is found to contribute substantially to the global total. Furthermore, the downward tendency of cloud activity leads to a greenhouse effect hiatus after the early 1990 s, prior to the warming pause. Additionally, this pause in the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the high number of La Niña events between 1991 and 2014. A strong La Niña indicates suppressed convection in the tropical central Pacific that reduces atmospheric water vapor content and cloud volume. This significantly weakened regional greenhouse effect offsets the enhanced warming influence in other places and decelerates the rising global greenhouse effect. This work suggests that the greenhouse effect hiatus can be served as an additional factor to cause the recent global warming slowdown.


[/FONT]
 
I have not seen any scientific evidence, that the warming path we are on is troublesome.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Ocean heating has far more to do with atmospheric transparency and solar changes, than greenhouse gasses.

The radioactive spectra of CO2 and H2O are very well absorbed in the first few microns of water. Because of this, the heat is very rapidly returned to the atmosphere. Though there is convection heating of the water below, it is a small percentage of the change. Changes in wind speeds modulate the velocity of the latent heat absorption. Shortwave, however, acts differently than longwave. The water is very transparent to visible and shorter wavelengths. Therefore, it completely absorbs what isn't reflected. Since the majority of this is several meters down, it well mixes the heat in the ocean, and takes a very long time to lose heat to the atmosphere compared to heating from longwave.

The groupthink of these notable climatologists is that CO2 is the cause of nearly all AGW, and that simply is wrong. Atmospheric transparency is a large factor, especially for the flux of ocean heat. The transparency is driven by natural and anthropogenic aerosols.

I believe they see the correlation of fossil fuel burning and warming, and forget this burning produces aerosols too.

I'm pretty confident that newer papers are starting to support the Iris theory pretty good. I keep meaning to find it again, but there is a recent paper that shows dramatic negative forcing from clouds.
Click to expand...

Your amateur opinions based on ignorance, misinformation and ideological confirmation bias are completely irrelevant.
 
Quaestio said:
Your amateur opinions based on ignorance, misinformation and ideological confirmation bias are completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Your denial of scientific opinion is noted by all.
 
Grand Mal said:
Is where I live. There's been layoffs in the shellfish mariculture industry because the increased acidity of the water has depleted certain shellfish to non-sustainable levels.
The acidity is caused by CO2 dissolving in the ocean.

Pacific shellfish set for price hike as ocean acidity keeps rising - The Globe and Mail

What is Ocean Acidification?
Click to expand...

The deniers say this isn't happening.

Just watch how their amateur opinions, backed by out of context studies, will overwhelm any mention of this obvious problem in this section.
 
Jack Hays said:
It’s back. The Pause has returned – at least it has in the satellite data over land.
Click to expand...

And this is what that new 'pause' over 29% of the planet's surface looks like:

trend



A new pause. A new low. Just not in temperatures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom