Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic 465
vinces99 writes with news about a study that may account for a slowdown in air temperature rises. Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface. More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published in Science. Subsurface ocean warming explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth's surface. "Every week there's a new explanation of the hiatus," said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. "Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause." What they found is that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.
Wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks here have been saying that the "hiatus" is a denier hoax. But now it's real, AND we understand it!
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:2, Insightful)
Do enlighten us - please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
Strangely, all the examples I can find just support the consensus view.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a common tactic I see on Slashdot: "How can Slashdot be praising x when they usually say y?"
The folks claiming that the "hiatus" is a denier hoax are not necessarily the same folks who published this paper.
Furthermore, the argument is not that "hiatus" is a denier hoax - any fool can see temperature readings have been flat in most measured areas. The counter-argument is typically that the Earth is really big and that surface measurements alone do not necessarily represent the amount of heat absorbed by the atmosphere. Where all of that heat has been going was where the speculation has been, with the usual supposition being "the ocean" or "the poles".
Re:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.
Re:Well, that's bad news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Washington DC think tanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's bad news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I nether believe in global warming nor do I deny that it could be happening. I am simply interested in the science put forward and am open to adjusting my hypothesis based on the observed and tested results.
With that out of the way, the fact that some scientists are saying that there is no actual "Hiatus" and producing numbers to back up there claims while others are examining the temperature data and looking for new systems and processes that explain the changes they are seeing worries me. It tells me that some in the scientific community have abandon the scientific method and are attempting to make the data fit the hypothesis they have. Don't get me wrong, this happens far more often in science than most believe. However, in such a hot political topic one must be vigilant and make sure that the politics does not overshadow the truth we learn through science.
Ether way you look at it, the discovery of a new process within the chaotic system of the atmosphere simply adds more data to the mix and allows us to better understand the processes.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet, I can't wait for next week's alternate explanation!
Go ahead "consensus" troll mods - do your worst to bury every skeptic questioning sketchy science on this story. Then go look in the mirror and call yourself a rational scientist.
Science is about skepticism. Even climatologists that support the theory of man influenced climate change are constantly questioning the data, and looking at alternate conjectures. The very article referenced explicitly states that many of the theories that were presented to explain why global surface temperatures in the last decade did not track the apparent heat load global warming induced were inadequate, and the subject of further inquiry like the research cited. That's how Science works. But Science doesn't discover all the facts instantly and doesn't advance in convenient textbook chapters. It isn't skepticism that tries to characterize Science as just a bunch of random guesses, one after the other. That's just ignorance of Science. Science works by incremental and sometimes studdering progress forward. There are lots of things we know with certainty. We know carbon dioxide traps heat in Earth's lower atmosphere. We know human activities have dramatically increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The net result is an increased amount of heat absorbed by the Earth. What precisely happens to that heat in all of the complex thermal systems on Earth is still not well understood. But that doesn't mean the core principles are just random guesses. We're still discovering how 19th century chemistry works, but no one thinks that new chemistry discoveries mean chemistry is left-wing conspiracy.
The history of scientific progress looks no different for any other subject than it looks for 21st century climatology. Our understanding of gravity, of the germ theory of infectious disease, of quantum mechanics all followed similar discovery and learning curves. The only difference is that general relativity and Schroedinger's equation aren't subjects politicians can effectively argue about.
I think a lot of people, even some actual scientists, do not understand the role of skepticism in Science. There's a difference between scientific skepticism and peanut gallery skepticism. Scientific skepticism is healthy. When a scientist is skeptical of prevailing theories and conducts intellectually honest research aimed at probing that skepticism, that's always valuable. Science isn't a poll: if a scientific theory is correct, it will survive skeptical research. If its wrong, it will eventually be contradicted by the evidence. But when someone with no understanding of the facts or the research misinterprets the natural skepticism that is at the heart of scientific discovery by filtering it through their own "common sense" then they don't understand why science is successful overall, and really ought to shut up about it.
And there you are (Score:5, Insightful)
The real denialists are, and always have been, the ones who think science is never to be questioned.
You are more the zealot than anyone who ever came out of Bob Roberts U.
It will be nice a decade or two hence when it is undeniable just how far you have allowed yourself to be duped (well actually it is the case now, but even you will admit it in 20 years).
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
Case in point (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no killfile because I believe in hearing what other people think.
Like all denialists you cover your ears and go LA LA LA when confronted with heresy to your chosen brands of religion.
It's sad really, that an otherwise intelligent individual can let himself go in a kind of self-imposed Alzheimer's.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions,
So you want to keep performing scientific research, but not use that research to inform our actions? That's... genius.
often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
Oh yeah, that's a real problem with a lot of political systems; too many scientists making policy and not enough career politicians and business lobbyists. Haw haw haw.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok.
This article isn't saying the heat is "disappearing". The heat is indeed being trapped and transferred to ocean temperatures. Ocean currents drive climate. Not sure how you think this "debunks" AGW.
Re:Atmosphere affects about a few inches of surfac (Score:4, Insightful)
haha just like my stovetop burner only affects the temperature of a few millimeters of water on the bottom of the pot
That is far more an example of the effect the sun has on the water than the atmosphere.
If you go into a shallow lake is it the same as ambient air temperature...
Put a few miles of water above your pot and see how far it gets when you turn on the heat below..
Re:And there you are (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what is even more similar to what religions do? Using a term like "heretics" - only your variant is called "denialists". Yes, religions have been using that trick for hundreds of years to escape questions.
Another way you can tell you are part of a cult is when your high priests are telling you to sacrifice something while they live in comfort and plenty.
I guess really though, we should say what you are involved in it far closer to scientology, with adjusted core sample data replacing e-meters...
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see - the climate models are missing something. This of course isn't a surprise; they're missing lots of things, many of which are called out in the study (ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, unexpected stratospheric aerosol variation or solar variation, etc). There's a lot of details we can't predict, but climate models are still useful even when we know they're incomplete, just like every other kind of model.
Still, I appreciate the link, even if (as you say) it doesn't invalidate any "sketchy science".
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people dont understand the difference between healthy scepticism and outright denial.
Sceptics analyse the evidence behind conclusions and express their concerns. When concerns are valid, the conclusions are re-examined and if need be, changes are made, experiments are re-run with these new factors in mind.
A person in denial looks for evidence to support their point of view. They dont examine the evidence, they only look for skerricks and soundbites that support their ideas, they dont add to the scientific process at all. The problem is that denial loves to hide in and pretend that it's proper scepticism because this gives denial legitimacy. The worse part is, they will attempt to take evidence out of context to support their ideas.
Scepticism is an important part of verification in science, in science you're not meant to believe anything. However denial means believing in your idea regardless of any and all the evidence arrayed against it. Pretty much the antithesis of scientific scepticism.
Put simply (TL;DR)
Scepticism says: the climate change model is incorrect, we need to change the model.
Denial says: the climate change model is incorrect, therefore climate change is wrong LA LA LA LA LA I cant hear you.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
>Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate
yeah, let's leave the important decissions to lawyers and economists, and not to scientists and engineers. Now THAT would lead to a great society !
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming.
You're certainly right that they can debate as much as they want as to the cause.
Since the dawn of modern post-industrial science, scientists have been screaming for political action while larged monied interests decried their research. Whether they're right or wrong, the motives of those attempting to maintain the status quo are ridiculously complex. Industry attempted to mislead the public and use Congress to determine whether it was safe to infuse every square inch of our environment with particulate lead, our rain with sulfuric and nitric acid, our atmosphere with CFCs, our water with poisons. Personally, when a large amount of scientists start screaming about there being serious consequences to something going on, I'd listen to them.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:4, Insightful)
>Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate yeah, let's leave the important decissions to lawyers and economists, and not to scientists and engineers. Now THAT would lead to a great society !
Lawyers and economists are very good in their respective fields, it would be foolish to believe that scientists and engineers would be better at matters of law or economy.
The Inability To Understand Point Stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
The people using the word "denialists" are not scientists. That's the point, once you go there you have stopped using science and have firmly planted both feet into the realm of "religion". Even if you started with Science...
I, like all rational people, respect science and scientists when they remain dedicated to the pursuit of truth, even to the point they can admit a theory was incorrect.
But many of your alarmists have not watched Frozen enough to get the message. Let It Go.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate, it only undermines the public's faith on their impartiality.
You've got the migration patterns wrong. Ideologues and zealots got into science, and drove the unbelievers out.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have any idea how many trillions we've wasted economically on the global warming thing?
Uh, no I don't. How have we wasted trillions because of global warming?
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:2, Insightful)
All climate models assume a lag between a cause and the observed results.
This just means the lag might be 30+ years.
How do you explain this lag?
Just setting a delay of 30 years is just another way of making a model into more of a mechanical Turk. If you don't have a hypothesis to why the delay should be for example 35 years rather than 34 or 36 then the model is no better than the lowest order polynomial that fits the value.
The big difference is that the polynomial will be a lot better at hinting at catastrophic climate change since it will take off towards an extreme high or low as soon as you leave the data range.
Just changing a model until it fits the data isn't good science. It isn't even science. You need to be able to motivate each parameter with something else than just "It has to be there, otherwise it doesn't follow the data."
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have enough observations to ever begin to know what is "usual" in the first place.
Under normal circumstances, this should have produced a noticeably cool period, similar to the 1940s and 1890s. Instead the decade was still the warmest on record.
Even the longest records we have may well be a few orders of magnitude too short to be of much use here. That's before even considering issues of accuracy, when can even apply to records being currently collected.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:2, Insightful)
But the bottom line is: people aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are...
Your post is strong evidence that at least one of us is. Since you're taking on and defaming scientists as a group, perhaps you would care to share your analysis leading to your figures of "trillions" and "5%".
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't mean climate models are useless at all. The phenomenon absorbing the heat that this paper studies is cyclical with 20-35 years between more and less absorption periods. That's difficult to model because it's probably impossible to predict the exact timing of the cyclical changes. One way to model that is it just take the long term average of heat absorption and accept that sometimes the model will over predict the warming and sometimes it will under predict the warming but the long term average will be about right. The findings of the paper don't contradict the fundamental assumptions of climate models but it may point the way to improvements in modeling the ocean portion of the models.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:3, Insightful)
Scepticism says: the climate change model is incorrect, we need to change the model. Denial says: the climate change model is incorrect, therefore climate change is wrong LA LA LA LA LA I cant hear you.
I agree. The problem is that quite often skeptics, that fit your exact description above, are labeled deniers.
Re:Washington DC think tanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Is your argument that since there are some who make money through questionable methods in a given field, then the whole field is inherently a scam? By that (broken) logic, I could also say:
"dude, there is so much money in Religion that there's no way to stop the gravy train. there's no way you can stop the gravy train." (Billions made, Tax Free!, that should piss off everyone).
"dude, there is so much money in Fossil Fuels that there's no way to stop the gravy train. there's no way you can stop the gravy train." (They stand to lose WAY more than the scientists stand to gain if AGW is true, doesn't it make sense that they would do everything they can to try to misinform people so they can continue to make as much money as possible?).
etc...
Let me as you (and the parent) as simple question:
What would it take to convince you that AGW is real?
I ask because there is a mountain of evidence for it. And, to be honest, not a whole lot of evidence against it. Granted, there have been some misteps but misteps doesn't mean that the problem isn't real, it means that our description of the problem needs refinement... big difference.
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if some scientist comes up with something that overthrows a major part of a field of science, that scientist is going to be famous, so there's a big incentive to refute AGW if possible.
This idiotic sophism has been so often refuted, that any attempt to do so again seems futile. In fact, if I were in a fouler mood, it would elicit the well-deserve soup of expletives in your direction. But hey, I am not there yet.
So once again, any self-selected group cannot be considered honest if they are not open to criticism or introspection from outside experts. The AGW camp is just such a group. If you are one of them, you are a "peer". If you are a renowned world-expert on a subject on which these "peers" make statements, but you yourself are not an expert on their entire subject, when you ask questions on the field of your expertise, they brand you a denier, bring out the tar and feathers and drag your name through the mud. So not only are they not open to any outside criticism, they, under the threat of destroying people's careers, actively discourage any outside experts from questioning their "findings."
This is a classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org] type of logical fallacy.
I am glad we've covered that so that the next rabid dog foaming at the mouth, because his favorite politicians or celebrities told him to support AGW, can repeat this fallacy again.