New paper on warming hiatus?

Question

Curious what you think of this paper. As anyone who visits this site regularly and reads my posts, as well as those of others, though there is a current hiatus, meaning a period of not as drastic warming, for the last decade or so the energy imbalance of various greenhouse gas still exists as measured by satellites.

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262

The above paper states that there has been a decrease of -0.06 K/yr over the course of ten years related to CO2 increases. There has also been a decrease of -0.04 K/yr in the O3 brightness temperature and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr  in the CH4 brightness temperature over that same 10 year time period. This amounts to a total decrease of 0.13K/yr or 1.3K in total during that time period due to changes in those three greenhouse gases alone.

A new paper shows that the warming hiatus may be caused by the IPO, which has a temperature profile very similar to the PDO.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/climate-change-effect-impacts-assessments-may08/figure-3-4.html

Is there any errors in this question? If so would you point them out to me? If not, what do you make of this new information and where do you see the climate change debate in the social and political arena headed from here?

Hey Dook · Accepted Answer

Although your links leads only to the abstract, not the full article, the bottom-line conclusion is undoubtedly valid: "The current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling." Nobody except anti-science deniers and their dupes tries to claim that the long term global warming trend, solidly proven by massive scientific research decades ago, somehow can only be true if natural variability vanishes. The denier halfwits make no more sense with their recycled Heartland Wattsup anti-science than if they were to "argue" that winter must be a hoax because the cold temperatures of cold winter nights become less extreme on warmer sunny winter days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw&feature=youtu.be

I suppose the scientific question with the article is HOW much of the hiatus is due to the cooler eastern Pacific (versus other factors).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Niña

匿名 · Answer

One hates to make a mistake about anything. Taking a 'sledge hammer' to a well intended answer is typical for alarmists. Personal sensitivity runs high with alarmists. I think we would be better served if we delved into Climate Science's main concern instead of making it a personal issue on a person's integrity. Focusing on a debate on "climate sensitivity" seems to be the best idea as of late. Climate catastrophes along with temperatures are falling well short of alarmist's predictions.

I remember just last month we were looking in the oceans for the missing heat energy and like an amazing 'cure for cancer' it shows up in the upper atmosphere. Give me a break on anyone making a mistake please!

Gary F · Answer

>>More than likely this is due to misunderstandings 1936 was not the warmest globally.<< Mae is not smart enough to misunderstand something. The power of the Stupid-Force is too strong.

? · Answer

So, Dork, why is it cooler now than it has been in the recent and not so recent past?
It's not even as warm as 1936.

It WAS warmer globally.  The data has been manipulated to "cool" the 1930s.

New paper on warming hiatus?

4 個解答