Last Build Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:34:25 +0000
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:34:25 +0000So why are we still talking about the 1998-2013 pause when we should be talking about the 2007-2016 hyper-warming? If you look at the major datasets (global surface and satellite), the average trend over the last ten years is +0.325C per decade. The strongest warming is found in the (denier favored) satellite data which averages to about 0.4C per decade. The weakest warming is found in the NOAA database with the those hated Karl corrections (+0.187C, the only dataset showing less than 0.3C). Since their favorite sources now clearly demonstrate the hyper-warming, will the deniers become believers? Now granted the ten year time frame is too short to draw any serious conclusions, but that didn't stop deniers from declaring the pause at least as early as 2008.
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:07:30 +0000The GMST decreased from 2005 through 2012. If the same thing happens again from 2016 through 2023, nothing will be done. All the name calling and scorn and ridicule in world won't change a thing. So, is the pause that never happened going to happen again?
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:20:16 +0000A point in the discussion about the 'pause' that caught my eyes was the large number of possible - and not implausible at first sight - explanations for the reduced trend. Many of them were presented as explaining a large part of the reduced warming. Among others: ENSO, solar activity, (deep) ocean warming, data gaps, etc. If you'd sum up alle the suggested influences, their aggregated effect would have been quite a strong cooling trend. This was not the case, and with global temperature being largely back in the range of the long-term trend and the model projections it should be possible to have a second look on the suggested explanations. Provided that global warming has not strongly accelerated (for whatever reason), most probably not all of these influences had the suggested effect. What we can do now is to compare the change of these factors over the last few years, because these should show a similar development as global temperature. ENSO is certainly an important factor. But it probably does not explain the whole increase. Solar activity is still low, thus it might not explain much. I haven't seen recent data about ocean warming. Data gaps is a longer term effect that might 'hide' some warming, but can't explain such a strong interannual increase. These are just first thoughts, but it might be interesting to dig and discuss more in depth. It's not about the long-term trend, but it might give us hints about interannual or decadal variability.
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 04:48:55 +0000Sorry, re #20, should have said it's interesting what can happen exactly a year after the worlds hottest January on record. Still a bit worrying of course.
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 04:33:49 +0000#20:
Let’s not forget 2017: “Parts of Alaska See Coldest Temperatures in Several Years as Lows Plummet into the 40s and 50s Below Zero.” https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/alaska-frigid-below-zero-temperatures-january-2017It's interesting what can happen during the worlds hottest January on record. Bit worrying though.
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:31:00 +0000No comments yet? I'm no climate scientist...not even close...but please let's read some comments...or is it so "factual" that no discussion is needed...even after the Trump victory...I appreciate, deeply, deeply, the work and effort done on this site...I only understand a minutia of what is being discussed...but I know it involves the future of the entire planet, all sentient beings, all of the globe...many, many thanks to those who run this site and...despite the attacks you've endured and will, no doubt now will endure, keep running it. I'm only a neophyte in all this but I appreciare the comments, even if I don't quite understand them. I know you have the fate of earth as your goal...
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 22:18:10 +0000The lack of a "pause" isn't the entire story. From the perspective of public perception, of more importance is the misleading and deceptive use of "pause" claims by climate deniers. Of course they still claim there was a "pause" (one such effort is dissected here). We need to hammer them about their ludicrous claims, as publicly and as often as we can. As ridiculous as they are, let's heap ridicule on them and not relent.
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:37:27 +0000Are deniers all politically conservative? I suspect that they are. In the past decades, the USA Republican conservatives have found out that lies work. That happens in all areas, not just climate science. That is Trump's main tactic, and it worked for him. It really is a question of yelling the loudest. The conservatives can continually boldly lie. The "sensible" people try to reason with them, presenting facts and arguments. That is not working very well, most likely because the conservatives know they are lying and believe it is justified. It is necessary to yell "you lie" "you are a fraud" over and over again, louder and louder. The downside is that the subject turns into an unseemly brawl, which might be what the conservatives would like. But they have found a good tactic, and its continuation is very damaging to democracy. I still remember the debates about smoking and cancer. There the reasonable, calm response to the tobacco companies' claims eventually worked. But we now live in a different era.
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:38:46 +0000
Individuals do not have the freedom or equal power to make individual “purchasing” choices in the economy that will create a major shift in the Energy System of humanity. It’s irrational and illogical to think or fantasize it ever could.CF&D, AKA 'carbon tax', doesn't just work at the individual level; it affects corporate and governmental spending decisions, too. That's one of the strengths of the approach.
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:25:46 +0000#25,T. Marvel--"...the non-deniers should get off their high horse." Each to his own, but I'm trying to use my high horse to make up some of the ground we'very lost over the last 20 years.