CWG: Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated

[Fozz]

I'm no denier but this slowdown makes me a little curious and skeptical of the doom and gloom predictions far into the future.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/

[ORH_wxman]

It's a reasonable synopsis of many of the points we have discussed previously in here in other threads over global temperatures....and the IPCC AR5 report and associated discussion of the slowdown in global temperature rise.

 

There's some peer reviewed work on this which he cited in the article: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

 

 

The IPCC also states that some GCMs may be too sensitive to GHG forcing producing the big model discrepencies with recent trends:

 

"There are also possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors. {WG1 2.4, 9.3, 9.4; 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, WG1 Box 9.2} "

 

 

 

This is where much of the climate debate truly lies in the peer reviewed science right now...TCR and ECS.

[Jonger]

Thanks Fozz, I bought a new Toyota Prius 3 weeks ago because of your hysteria. 

 

[Fozz]

It's a reasonable synopsis of many of the points we have discussed previously in here in other threads over global temperatures....and the IPCC AR5 report and associated discussion of the slowdown in global temperature rise.

 

There's some peer reviewed work on this which he cited in the article: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

 

 

The IPCC also states that some GCMs may be too sensitive to GHG forcing producing the big model discrepencies with recent trends:

 

"There are also possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors. {WG1 2.4, 9.3, 9.4; 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, WG1 Box 9.2} "

 

 

 

This is where much of the climate debate truly lies in the peer reviewed science right now...TCR and ECS.

 

Noob question.... what do TCR and ECS stand for?

[Fozz]

Thanks Fozz, I bought a new Toyota Prius 3 weeks ago because of your hysteria. 

 

 

why is that funny? AGW is still a threat and driving a hybrid is a good thing

[HailMan06]

Transient climate response.

Effective climate sensitivity.

[ORH_wxman]

Transient climate response.

Effective climate sensitivity.

 

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.

[GaWx]

 I still think we'll know much more about the size of the solar component in relation to the AGW component by ~2018.

[nflwxman]

Just to clarify what ORH said about TCR- the IPCC cites that they believe the assumption that GCMs may be too sensitive to GHG forcing is actually the least ​ plausible explanation they mention for the "pause."

 

The most plausible is combination of human made aerosols, natural variability (PDO/ENSO/SOLAR), and measurement bias (missing data in the arctic, ect).

 

I think the next 8 years will be very telling in the temperature record.

 

 

I would also note, it's not a very well written article with the science.  

[forkyfork]

article is lacking in scientific reasons

[forkyfork]

also fails to address this:

[StudentOfClimatology]

Do we really expect a linear response to CO2 perturbation in a highly energetic, non-linear system? It would be quite interesting to see the reaction amongst skeptics if we were to enter a period of rapid warming, something like what happened after the younger dryas. They'd be s**ting themselves.

An 0.5mph increase in wind speed over the oceans could easily explain the recent slowdown in warming due to increased vertical mixing...Large multi-decadal circulatory shifts are the norm on Earth, as evidenced by rapid climate change of the past, documented throughout the paleo network. Humans are (more likely than not) perturbing these dynamics, making a large shift all the more likely. As the ice age cycles prove, merely a shift in the distribution of solar energy can lead to catastrophic impacts. Humans are doing much more than that..

Don't pretend the global temperature can't warm 1-3C over 5-10 years...because it can, and it has done so before...

[nflwxman]

Do we really expect a linear response to CO2 perturbation in a highly energetic, non-linear system? It would be quite interesting to see the reaction amongst skeptics if we were to enter a period of rapid warming, something like what happened after the younger dryas. They'd be s**ting themselves.

An 0.5mph increase in wind speed over the oceans could easily explain the recent slowdown in warming due to increased vertical mixing...Large multi-decadal circulatory shifts are the norm on Earth, as evidenced by rapid climate change of the past, documented throughout the paleo network. Humans are (more likely than not) perturbing these dynamics, making a large shift all the more likely. As the ice age cycles prove, merely a shift in the distribution of solar energy can lead to catastrophic impacts. Humans are doing much more than that

Don't pretend the global temperature can't warm 1-3K over 5-10 years...because it can

I agree.  I think we look to be on the cusp of rapid warming since we are beginning to "recover" from dropping into the negative phase of the PDO.  Last time we went from a positive to negative phase of the PDO, the global temperature dropped over 0.2 degrees Celsius in the years following.  This time, there was almost no significant drop at all, lending itself to the positive forcing.

[ORH_wxman]

Just to clarify what ORH said about TCR- the IPCC cites that they believe the assumption that GCMs may be too sensitive to GHG forcing is actually the least ​ plausible explanation they mention for the "pause."

 

The most plausible is combination of human made aerosols, natural variability (PDO/ENSO/SOLAR), and measurement bias (missing data in the arctic, ect).

 

I think the next 8 years will be very telling in the temperature record.

 

 

I believe the IPCC will continue to adjust their official line of thinking regarding TCR/ECS of the climate models as more and more peer reviewed studies come out that are below their GCM baselines. Particularly TCR.

 

Even the IPCC's estimate TCR/ECS is below the what their own models show.

 

 

On the IPCC's graph of feedbacks, you can see how they revised down their total energy budget from AR4...AR4 listed in grey dots (with a central blue dot for estimate) while AR5 is in the colored:

 

[Jonger]

also fails to address this:

 

The records have that going up steadily for several 100 years... For all we know, that has been a constant since the end of the last ice age.

 

OHC has actually slowed at the same time land temps have slowed.

 

It should be consistent with a warming world.

[Kelathos]

OHC from the 1950s, where does that data come from? Argo has only been deployed in the past decade.

[Jonger]

OHC from the 1950s, where does that data come from? Argo has only been deployed in the past decade.

 

Argo changed the trajectory of the warming... So most likely pre-argo data was a tad overzealous. You won't get many alarmists to admit to this... Land temps and OHC slowed down coincidentally at the same time... just coincidence though.

[skierinvermont]

The records have that going up steadily for several 100 years... For all we know, that has been a constant since the end of the last ice age.

 

OHC has actually slowed at the same time land temps have slowed.

 

It should be consistent with a warming world.

 

If only you knew how stupid this comment was.

 

The idea that OHC has been going up at that rate since the end of the last ice age is completely ridiculous and downright stupid coming someone who has been on this forum as long as you.

 

That amount of OHC increase would be enough to raise the ocean 100 feet. Since the rate is also equal to a warming of the entire ocean just over .1C per century that would mean the deep oceans have warmed 10C since the last ice age. Unless the oceans were a solid block of very cold ice in the last ice age, that is of course impossible considering the oceans are still only 3.5C on average. 

 

Basically you completely fail to comprehend the massive amount of heat the oceans are and have been absorbing. The earth is in an incomprehensibly large energy imbalance that will only be equalized after significant surface temperature warming. Additional CO2 emissions will prevent equilibrium from being realized.

[skierinvermont]

Argo changed the trajectory of the warming... So most likely pre-argo data was a tad overzealous. You won't get many alarmists to admit to this... Land temps and OHC slowed down coincidentally at the same time... just coincidence though.

 

No it's probably not a coincidence. Probably a negative forcing slowed the rate of OHC and surface temperature increase. You're making so many stupid arguments hoping some of them will stick that you're contradicting yourself.

 

If you're going to say that the slowdown is NOT a coincidence then that means the slowdown in OHC IS real and that it was rising quickly pre-2000.

 

I'm not sure why you're so desperate to prove OHC was rising slower than the data shows pre-2000 considering your previous post shows you obviously have no grasp on the signficance of OHC rise whatsoever. 

 

Just another example of deniers throwing as much mud as they can hoping it sticks even though you contradict yourself half the time and just plain wrong the rest of the time.