Do you hear the sound of my point going way over your head? Read the NOAA site on ENSO maybe three times (hint: relatively small fluctuations in sea temperatures can have significant impact on air temperatures). I picked 1997 to highlight because of the very strong 1997-98 El Niño, it had record high atmospheric temperatures (to that point), and because this is the cherry picked start date for "flat" temperature growth. The ocean is retaining an enormous amounts of heat. This impacts tremendously temperature for years to come and pushes the equilibrium point higher and higher. The Link If you just would admit to not understanding any of this, it would be progress. Why is this so difficult for you? Why not just defer to the National Academy of Sciences? Why rely on charlatans? I really do not get this. Do you have any idea how boring this is for me to have to explain this again and again and again like with a three year old?
paso, i fully agree that the ocean holds massive amounts of energy. it acts as a huge buffer to warming or cooling actually, which is why we have had 17.6 years of no warming of the atmosphere. the ocean can more than handle what we are giving to it.
and your rhetorical games and your attempts to try and dominate me verbally are wearisome. let your arguments make your points. unfortunately for you, this is not happening because your arguments are not strong.
Well, that was a complete waste of my time again. You never tire of completely missing the point. Mind like a rusted shut steel trap. Rinse, wash, repeat. We have had significant "warming" (better described as heat retention) since 1997.
So the atmosphere hasn't warmed in 17 years because all the energy is going into the ocean. And yet the ocean greatly affects the temperature/weather of the atmosphere. And yet hurricane haven't increased and air temperature hasn't increased over the last 17 years. Knowing that statement 3 is an easily observable fact, how can statements 1 and 2 both be correct?
you guys are like children #3 is not true (and is not "easily" observable particularly over short time frames especially when you pick the highest starting point) temperatures are up The Link and the ocean has two primary layers (surface and middle - the lower ocean does not appear to change much at least so far) and what has been going on over the last several years is an exchange between the surface and middle layers cooling the surface and storing the heat in the middle - this has ameliorated temperatures to an extent this stuff has been addressed about ten times in this thread already maybe I will index this thread so I can just say look at page 81
Where are the middle and surface layers interchanging? That would be interesting to read about. For clarification, I am not talking about the subject of heat retention in the ocean, I am curious to read about observations of those layers intermixing.
Question to climate change deniers: Which side does the Sun rise in the morning? serious question....
When was the climate ever constant? Nobody ever thought the climate wasn't changing. What is in question, to some degee at least, is why it is changing and what are the causes. I personally think all money spent going forward on grants for weather related science should be for R@D for how to deal with the coming weather extremes.(since it is now going to be freezing and scorching) Because the developing world will not cease in creating CO2.
paso's responses have actually become comical. his inability to respond intelligently to our points is now painfully obvious. when a response to your substantive reply is just a one liner insult, he has as good as showed us his lack of ability to reply intelligently on this issue.
The earth has warmed and cooled in trends for its entire existence. To think we as humans can control the natural heating and cooling process is arrogant.
i don't think I have linked to this yet. A relatively recent paper published in Science shows that the North Pacific Ocean and Antarctic Intermediary waters were significantly warmer than they are now (on the order of 2 degrees centigrade or, for comparison, 20x the OHC warming we have seen over the past 50 years for most of the past 10,000 years. This is a very big deal and flies in the face of many previous assumptions. Judith Curry's blog is a great place to read about it, but she links to the paper itself as well: Judith Curry on the New Science article on OHC
this is also interesting. There is a new study out that shows that Tibetan plane glaciers have been growing at an unexpectedly quick pace the past 10 years. This amounts to 30 Gigatons per year and greatly reduces estimated 35 Gigatons we have been losing in other parts of the Himalayas. Tibetan Glaciers growing at an unexpected rate
new studies keep coming in that are lowering the climate sensitivity feedbacks for CO2. If the global warming pause continues another few years, all hell is going to break loose as Scientists who have sat quietly by feel empowered to question the "consensus." I am excited to watch it. Then again, we have been warming for 200 years and that warming has been virtually the same for the past 110 years, so we are due for a new "hottest year on record"....but with the sun going quiet, the PDO switching negative and the AMO due to switch negative, I could still see us escaping a new "hottest year on record" for another few years or even longer.
Just wait, if we continue on a cooling trend we'll hear how we screwed the Earth up. We've gotten it so hot the switch has flipped and now we're going into an ice age. Nice going humans......
ha! hilarious. and now the new report comes out and despite 15 years of flat temperatures and most predictions being off completely (with the exception of the Arctic Ice I admit) the UN is now more convinced than ever that we are destroying the earth. What a shock!
Another thing I'm tired of is nit picking places at a particular time. If arctic ice is melting and another place is growing isn't that called balance?
no, no, NO! you don't understand at ALL! (denier!) if something extreme happens anywhere in the world, no matter if it is cold, hot, wet, dry, etc, it is the fault of climate change, but if we have 15 years of no warming, that is not significant at all and making anything out of it makes you an anti-scientific dolt with no ability to understand trend lines. got it??
4 months in the books and 2014 is not looking terribly warm. Quite the contrary, it has been reasonably cool, particularly in the US where it has been near the bottom of temperature records for the first 4 months. Having said that, there is a good chance we are headed towards another El Nino after a few years of La Nina. This will be interesting. It may even lead to some new "largest monthly anomalies" and 2015 may be set up to be the consensus "hottest year on record" globally that we have been waiting for since 1998. The problem for alarmists is that this will still just be the same slow climb upwards that we have been observing for 170 years. In order for AGW to really be true, we need to start warming rather rapidly. To make up for about 13-18 years (depending upon the dataset) of no warming we have had, we need to warm at a faster rate than we have since the 1980-1998 run (which was reasonably impressive). Should be an interesting 20 months ahead.
