Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the biggest-heatsink dept.

Earth 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.

cancel ×

465 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Washington DC think tanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725659)

are revving up their Ph.D "truth squads" right now to debunk this latest.

Re:Washington DC think tanks (5, Informative)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47725761)

Debunk this latest what? Latest gloss over to cover up horrible weather models. I seriously wish my full time job was debunking Anthropomorphic global climate change piggybackers

Re:Washington DC think tanks (2, Insightful)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47725817)

dude, there is so much money in AGW that there's no way to stop the gravy train. there's no way you can stop the gravy train.

Re:Washington DC think tanks (0, Flamebait)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47725855)

Seriously just join the EPA, or Greenpeace that internationally funnels money to influence politicians. Green peace Russia receives funds from Russian oil to shut down foreign oil research. BUT THAT'S OKAY. Russian oil is thinking green.

Re:Washington DC think tanks (1, Interesting)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47725955)

why would I get a govt desk job at EPA when I can make a fortune in clean technology, driven by the urgency of climate change? real urgency or artificial urgency, the money's still green.

Re:Washington DC think tanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726285)

Their minds are too highly trained. /Still believe we're fucking up the planet.

Re:Washington DC think tanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726195)

How much does Big Oil pay? I need some money send me your email.

Every week there's a new explanation of the hiatus (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725665)

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.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (2, Insightful)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 months ago | (#47725755)

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:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725825)

I (a different AC) am willing to give our skeptic friend the benefit of the doubt.

To AC: What, exactly, do you find sketchy about the science in this story? I have no complaints about "skepticism" to whatever degree is healthy (e.g. asking critical questions), and would likewise love to be enlightened.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725829)

The "consensus view" being "If you don't agree with me, you are an oil shill."

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725839)

Then you're not looking very hard.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47725881)

please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.

I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science [ed.ac.uk] .

That's not to say that climate models are bad science, they are good science investigating the nature of the earth; but people who put too much faith in them without evidence were performing bad science.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726259)

To me its about the ice caps melting, which I think we can agree is taking place, will lead to global temperatures rising. The question and or the unknown that is getting asked and ignored, is mankind causing this to happen at a accelerated rate? I have no doubt the Ice has been melting since the planet warmed up millions of years ago. This process is going to happen anyway with or without mankind penchant for destroying everything, either unknowingly or on purpose.

The planet is far to complicated and understudied, yet the make overzealous claims, I understand the reasons, this is nothing more then hyped/sensational science, and as such it is being propagated for economic growth. New tech, jobs, ect., and to bring an eye opening awareness to those that otherwise wouldn't take it seriously..

However with the monopolistic oil/gas industry they are putting out millions of dollars to make sure things stay the way they are, either by buying off politicians to cut funding for alternative energy, or to have state politicians pass laws trying to ban people from having a combo of alternative energy/power grid. From some of the stories I have read and heard their even going as far as too pass laws banning self-relying alternative energies, I'm not sure that is true, however I wouldn't be surprised to find out it is being proposed . So much for living in a "free country/market"

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (4, Insightful)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 months ago | (#47726303)

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 (5, Insightful)

dnavid (2842431) | about 2 months ago | (#47725945)

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.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (4, Insightful)

silfen (3720385) | about 2 months ago | (#47726049)

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.

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.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (4, Insightful)

crioca (1394491) | about 2 months ago | (#47726109)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726293)

No, they want the science to be settled more-thoroughly before we re-model our entire society in response to it. Do you have any idea how many trillions we've wasted economically on the global warming thing? If they couldn't predict and can't explain the hiatus, that's just another sign that science and policymakers are being way too confident about the scientific underpinning for wasting trillions.

The real real truth goes something like this:

1) Scientists discover a possible global warming problem, but data isn't perfectly clear. However, there's a 5% chance it could fuck up all of human society in a few hundred years.
2) Scientists decide that nobody will take it seriously enough to take action, and decide that action is necessary, so they begin collectively fibbing about how solid the evidence is and how near and dramatic the impact is. They need to convince the sheeples to convince the government to do "the right thing". If there's any internal debate in the science community, it's squashed in the name of "don't let the sheeple see us disagreeing about the details! then they won't fix it!".

But the bottom line is: people aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are, and they don't need the science community usurping the decision-making power by internalizing the debate and lying to everyone.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726295)

Just remember that the purpose of every assumption is to shrink error bars, usually by an unknown amount. A good scientist is honest about this, unfortunately most scientists try to be honest but are incompetent when it comes to statistics and data analysis in general so they don't even realize their overconfidence. This is not in any way limited to climate science.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (0)

silfen (3720385) | about 2 months ago | (#47726309)

So you want to keep performing scientific research, but not use that research to inform our actions? That's... genius.

I said "The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions,". Is that a general statement about scientific research? Is it a call not to have research in general "inform" actions? Of course, it's neither. You're deliberately misrepresenting my position and putting up a strawman. In different words, you're a dishonest jerk.

Oh yeah, that's a real problem with a lot of political systems; too many scientists making policy

Apparently, you're also an ignorant jerk if you have to ask that question. I suggest you read up a little on European history and try to understand the role that science and scientists played in the worst regimes of the 20th century.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726323)

It's also interesting to realize the current obsession with normal distributions and averaging is a holdover from the eugenics movement.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47726077)

Regardless of the role of skepticism, everybody seems to be overlooking one key point:

If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked. Well, maybe not completely. Some more than others. But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (0)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 months ago | (#47726185)

Current climate models are useless and needs to be reworked, observations have contradicted their predictions and the fundamental assumption that "CO2 = main thermostat, everything else is irrelevant, lets make a wildly increasing graph and alarmist claims" have been wrong from day 1 and very much not scientific at all.

This paper doesn't change anything at all. It's just a restatement of a year old apologist paper.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 months ago | (#47726199)

But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.

Which assumptions?

All climate models assume a lag between a cause and the observed results.
This just means the lag might be 30+ years.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726215)

This is my first reaction when a new discovery which would impact the models is made.

I also am amused how the popular press reports and analyzes the discoveries.

I particularly recall a few years ago reading an article in Scientific American (a misnamed publication if there ever was one -- it's at least 25% politics now). The article reported on research that concluded that we had massively underestimated the amount of methane continuously released into the atmosphere from methane hydrates in the ocean. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, I read the article breathlessly waiting for the discussion of how this meant the climate models must be wrong since, if their predictions tracked actual data results, the models must have attributed more climate change to human activity than appropriate (the extra methane would have meant a smaller percentage of greenhouse gasses were the result of human activity and more was naturally occurring). Yet, not a mention of this little problem (I assume Scientific American didn't want to get blackballed as a "denier").

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (5, Interesting)

haruchai (17472) | about 2 months ago | (#47726245)

The "hiatus" isn't what people think - " this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface"
Note that the average temp is still rising even if more slowly than expected. But the entire planet doesn't warm or cool all at once.
During that "hiatus" the loss of ice cover, especially in the Arctic has been tremendous and that's noteworthy for 2 reasons.

The first is that the number of temperature monitoring stations in the Arctic is very poor. The other is that it takes a LOT of heat to melt ice - turning it to water at zero deg requires as much as raising room temp water to the boiling point.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (0)

lazy genes (741633) | about 2 months ago | (#47726155)

What precisely happens to that heat in all of the complex thermal systems on Earth is still not well understood. This is what happens. The sea surface temp rises and rushes to the poles, warm air will follow because its the path of least resistance, the warm air slices through the upper atmosphere jet stream and causes the polor vortex to drop over Northern Minnesota and freeze my balls off.

Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 months ago | (#47726319)

I think a lot of people, even some actual scientists, do not understand the role of skepticism in Science.

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726141)

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:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (1)

sjwt (161428) | about 2 months ago | (#47726235)

The missing news story here..

"Assumptions about the Ocean heat convection currents were wrong, they do not just shut down when temperatures rise a little"

I mean who would've thought that a large body of water would still try and maintain a thermodynamic balance..

This will be a thoughtful, productive discussion (-1, Troll)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 months ago | (#47725695)

At least until the denialists show up.

Re:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725727)

Denialist here. So, this was not occurring during the "warming" phase? Yeah fucking right. Anything that happens is because of climate change and anything that disproves that can be re-proven by some other BS.

Yet the exact same people bash creationists that have blind faith in God.

Global Warming Believers = Creationists.

Chumps.

Re:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47725767)

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:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (2)

crioca (1394491) | about 2 months ago | (#47726139)

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.

You mustn't of been listening very hard then, because the concern is that this "long standing natural occurrence" is being unnaturally accelerated and during other times when it "previously naturally occurred" at accelerated rates it resulted in mass extinction and damage to biodiversity.

Re:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (1)

silfen (3720385) | about 2 months ago | (#47726331)

You mustn't of been listening very hard then, because the concern is that this "long standing natural occurrence" is being unnaturally accelerated and during other times when it "previously naturally occurred" at accelerated rates it resulted in mass extinction and damage to biodiversity.

Really? That's interesting. There have been five mass extinctions in Earth's history. Which of these "mass extinctions" are you referring to? How was it in any way similar to, or related to, climate models for the next few centuries?

Re:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (1, Flamebait)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 months ago | (#47725913)

Funny you call them denialists for being.... right! What do you call Al Gore? Good intentioned?

And there you are (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47725973)

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:And there you are (0)

crioca (1394491) | about 2 months ago | (#47726147)

The real denialists are, and always have been, the ones who think science is never to be questioned.

I hear Creationists using that line a lot.

Re:And there you are (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47726223)

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:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (-1)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 months ago | (#47726037)

Humorously enough, of the 4 who've responded to my post so far, 3 were already in my killfile and the fourth is an AC.

Re:This will be a thoughtful, productive discussio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726065)

Yes, that is the attitude we love to see people have. Closed minded and refusing to have any discussion that doesn't go their way.

Case in point (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47726101)

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:Case in point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726287)

That internet idealism is harshly punished by trolls. You believe in hearing what people think, but trolls do not post what they actually think.

Well, that's bad news... (-1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | about 2 months ago | (#47725699)

Because there was no actual "hiatus". [realclimate.org] The poles were warming (on the surface, as opposed to 1,500m down) when the rest of the Earth wasn't. So this means global warming is actually accelerating by quite a bit.

Re:Well, that's bad news... (2, Insightful)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47725799)

Realclimate.Org....... The governmental agencies are crooked enough. Do you really need a full throttle biased website? "Hey guys wattsup just said climate change is fake!"

Re:Well, that's bad news... (4, Insightful)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 2 months ago | (#47725819)

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:Well, that's bad news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725871)

Really??? Hey, I have a bridge to sell ya! You interested?

LOL realclimate.org (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725999)

Asking them for an unbiased scientific opinion is about as credible as asking foxes for an unbiased opinion on whether chickens are tasty.

The site gives proper scientists a bad name. Their only concern is looking after Hansen's reputation, and they gang up and abuse anyone who dares raise proper scientific questions, or who opens discussion about counter-evidence, or suggests that there is something we do not know about the subject. They think the planet works as trivially as a test tube.

And then they affirm their lack of scientific integrity with a site ban. Really, the site is best classified as comedy. They don't understand the basis of scientific inquiry nor the scientific method, and think that science is decided by unshakeable opinion and shouting people down.

Re:LOL realclimate.org (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726085)

. They don't understand the basis of scientific inquiry nor the scientific method, and think that science is decided by unshakeable opinion and shouting people down.

Well, in politics that worked for Obama and the Democrats. Winning at all costs is acceptable to some people.

Well, that's bad news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726221)

Your facts don't confirm with all the climate denier shills that mysteriously came here.

Wait (2, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | about 2 months ago | (#47725703)

Folks here have been saying that the "hiatus" is a denier hoax. But now it's real, AND we understand it!

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725737)

Folks here have been saying that the "hiatus" is a denier hoax

Please provide at least 40 citations to back this claim of yours.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725773)

Any single story on anything to do with weather or climate will provide you with a minimum of 40 citations. /. is chock full of self-important "scientists" that know everything about weather, climate and climate change. Even better, they all know without a doubt that any change to weather or climate is based solely on man's actions. Anything that doesn't fit their story can easily be explained by something new and exciting that is unprovable but fits their narrative.

Chumps.

Re:Wait (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 months ago | (#47725763)

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:Wait (1)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47725837)

any fool can see temperature readings have been flat in most measured areas.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "any fool"...

Re:Wait (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 2 months ago | (#47725911)

or "the dog ate my homework!"

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725781)

The "hiatus" is an observed thing. What this paper is saying (if I read TFS correctly) is that the cause is not "global warming is bunk" as the deniers insist, but another piece of the global climate dynamics puzzle.

Re:Wait (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725851)

What I find interesting is that in a universe where heat disperses until equilibrium is reached, the deep Atlantic is somehow able to capture and hold a "massive amount of heat missing" from the rest of the planet.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725875)

And...in that universe, heat sinks to the depths as opposed to rising in an upwelling.....

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726311)

Well those folks were wrong. Scientists have been saying that the claim "the hiatus disproves climate change" is wrong. Deniers have been misrepresenting the hiatus and "folks" may have just used imprecise speech if they said the hiatus was a hoax, instead of, the misrepresentations of the hiatus are a hoax.

Yet agian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725707)

Looking for a scientific foundation why the pre determined conclusion of global warming isn't happening...

Astrophysics has the answer! (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 months ago | (#47725731)

It's Dark Matter.

If anything's missing, the answer always is Dark Matter.

Can't find your car keys . . . ? Dark Matter.

Short on your mortgage this month . . . ? Tell the bank, "Dark Matter."

The Earth is not as hot as we'd like it to be . . . ? Dark Matter.

Re:Astrophysics has the answer! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725865)

Well, technically, the bottom of the Atlantic is dark matter....

The Unearthly Glow (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47726015)

The bioluminescent denizens of the deep would like you to step down so as have a chat with you.

Re:Astrophysics has the answer! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725895)

It's Dark Matter.

If anything's missing, the answer always is Dark Matter.

i cud nevr find waldo. nw i kno y lol

Re:Astrophysics has the answer! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726075)

It's Dark Matter.

If anything's missing, the answer always is Dark Matter.

i cud nevr find waldo. nw i kno y lol

Like you're going to find Waldo.

You can't even find a dictionary.

Re:Astrophysics has the answer! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47726333)

Yes, I get Dark Mod Points all the time.

My drink... (1)

issicus (2031176) | about 2 months ago | (#47725733)

stays pretty dang cold till the last ice cube melts.

Re:My drink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725765)

Not according to scientific fact, it doesn't.

Re:My drink... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725827)

Please check your data, how cold is "pretty dang cold"?

Re:My drink... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725849)

Not according to scientific fact, it doesn't.

I concur. The scientific community as a whole tacitly understands that "pretty dang cold" is qualified by any beverage whose liquid temperature is -12 deg. C. or less. For your ice to be melting, it must therefore by definition be warmer than "pretty dang cold."

Re:My drink... (3, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 2 months ago | (#47725981)

I use ethanol ice (-114 C), you insensitive clod.

(And before you get pedantic, what else might you be drinking which is liquid at -12C?)

They melt (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47725997)

in order?

Hiatus? (1)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47725741)

Hiatus presumes reoccurrence. Never use past days to predict future occurrences.

Re:Hiatus? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47726083)

Does not you complaint presume non-reoccurrence? Owing to physics, it is expected warming will continue. So, this may be considered a pause from the expected behavior. This is not merely an extrapolation of past behavior, so your thinking is baseless.

Garbage in, Garbage out... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725745)

Until the authors of this piece got ahold of the swift bouy data, it didn't show such a warming signal at depth. They massaged and doctored and tortured the data until it did show such a signal, much like climate fraudster Michael Mann's oft discredited hockey stick, Briffa's discredited Yamal tree ring data that did not exclude outliers and had 90% of all climate signal in it credited to a single tree, ignoring hundreds of others in the same area that showed no signal, and Ben Santer's broken antarctic weather stations that he used to allege warming in Antarctica with a little help from illegitimate use of homogenization effects improperly applied.

Re:Garbage in, Garbage out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725859)

Until the authors of this piece got ahold of the swift bouy data, it didn't show such a warming signal at depth. They massaged and doctored and tortured the data until it did show such a signal, much like climate fraudster Michael Mann's oft discredited hockey stick, Briffa's discredited Yamal tree ring data that did not exclude outliers and had 90% of all climate signal in it credited to a single tree, ignoring hundreds of others in the same area that showed no signal, and Ben Santer's broken antarctic weather stations that he used to allege warming in Antarctica with a little help from illegitimate use of homogenization effects improperly applied.

How dare you state inconvenient truths?

why this article is nonsense (2, Informative)

BradMajors (995624) | about 2 months ago | (#47725747)

An explanation why this article is nonsense:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]

Well, at last (3, Interesting)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 2 months ago | (#47725759)

Not only does this explain a lot of the recent data, but it also directs attention to an ignored part of climatology: the vulcanism under the oceans and the warm currents they cause at very deep levels.

Good going, guys and guyettes!

Fun Fact (-1, Flamebait)

ishmaelflood (643277) | about 2 months ago | (#47725787)

If the Earth's atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C (approximately the size of the hockey stick) then that heat energy would warm the Earth's oceans by an unmeasurable 0.001 deg c. Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.

Re:Fun Fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725843)

They factored it in now so they can continue the climate change scam. Hey, all that heat is in the ocean....except that it's not.

Re:Fun Fact (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47725861)

Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.

OK, I am down on climate models, because they have poor accuracy [ed.ac.uk] , but come on, they don't ignore the oceans in their models. Check it out on Wikipedia at least [wikipedia.org] before writing something.

You might be able to say that their handling of the oceans is incorrect, and if you have a good reason, such a post would be interesting, but scientists definitely aren't ignoring the oceans in their models, I don't even know why you would think that.

Movie Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725789)

"we’ve hit a critical desalination point.” #3 in the MIT Technology Review list of worst "Science" in Science Fiction Movies.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424251/the-five-worst-hard-science-fiction-movies-ever/

Now bad Movie "Science" morphs into University of Washington: "Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena."

Ah. Excuse me but the Earth is not alive and so the word "symptoms" is not germane and factually incorrect.

[Do these "Science Types" just pull words from Wikipedia and not know what they mean even alone or in context?]

The chart is cool to look at ... (2)

MacTO (1161105) | about 2 months ago | (#47725811)

It clearly shows a relationship between atmospheric temperature, energy stored in the ocean, and salinity. Whether you agree or disagree with the interpretation of the data in terms of global warming, at least they have provided us with a nice visual demonstrating the relationship between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Atmosphere affects about a few inches of surface (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47725939)

At least they have provided us with a nice visual demonstrating the relationship between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Why is it nice to be misled?

In reality the atmosphere affects the temperature of a few inches of water on top of the ocean.

Far vaster of an impact is solar energy input.

Re:Atmosphere affects about a few inches of surfac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726081)

At least they have provided us with a nice visual demonstrating the relationship between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Why is it nice to be misled?

In reality the atmosphere affects the temperature of a few inches of water on top of the ocean.

Far vaster of an impact is solar energy input.

haha just like my stovetop burner only affects the temperature of a few millimeters of water on the bottom of the pot. and, it's too bad that solar energy input only affects the temperature of a few feet of the top of our aptmosphere. i'm cold. : (

Re:Atmosphere affects about a few inches of surfac (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47726183)

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:Atmosphere affects about a few inches of surfac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726301)

In reality the atmosphere affects the temperature of a few inches of water on top of the ocean.

The temperature of first few inches of water, in reality, affects the temperature of the water just below it. I think you might be able to apply some induction here.

yuo fa1L it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725821)

be a loT sTlower

Luck run out. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725853)

He, he. Warmists run out of luck. The Iceland volcano did not erupted this year so they can't blame to volcano. According to my computer models the cuplrit is Mariana Trench. It warmed up cooling the rest of the Earth.

What we do know - (2)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 months ago | (#47725995)

What we do know is that we don't know exactly how the whole system works. The whole system being the planetary carboin cycle on which we depend for our one and only nice comfortable life sustaining climate.

Given that we don't know how it all works and we depend on it are we really happy shitting in our own bathtub by releasing all sorts of long term stored carbon? Wouldn't it be better to slow down to a more natural rate and study the thing before we continued doing what might be self destructive.

Re:What we do know - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726279)

Given that we don't know how the carbon cycle works; why do we allow unlimited numbers of immensely destructive carbon life forms to appear and wreak havoc? A lot of problems (food, water, climate, war, etc.) would be rendered insignificant if 90% of the most destructive carbon life forms were eliminated. Then, you could live in your agrarian paradise in peace.

Long ranging consequences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726025)

Well,...

is there a global warming?
YES

Is it ONLY man made? (or caused)

NO, but with SIGNIFICANT man-made contribution.

We are burning fossil fuels(oil, gas, coal), which took millions of years to create (accumulate.)

And where are the long ranging consequences of human acts?

Consider the acts of old Greeks/Romans:

a) too many goats on islands - erosion
b) too many wood cutting / also erosion (but let's not deny it, the climate in Europe has certainly changed also due to less woods- due to e.g. Roman sieges, but of course, much more due to agricultural need for pastures and fields, which was certainly not only because of Romans...)
c) political: well, what about the Palestine? I partially "blame" the "old Romans", for all the suffering of Jews throughout the ages(in diaspora), and also, indirectly, significantly contributing even the current situation in Israel(even after cca 1979 years)
Were they not "forced to leave", they would not have returned :-)

Aw shit, here comes Cuthulu. (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 2 months ago | (#47726055)

As if global warming isn't scary enough.

Re:Aw shit, here comes Cuthulu. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726103)

And his methane laden belches.

Thing is, there's a LOT of methane trapped down in the deep oceans as clathrates. When the temperature starts rising at the ocean floor those start breaking down, and methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2

Something for both sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726089)

I've been a staunch AGW skeptic almost from day no. 1, and have taken plenty of shit for it. To be fair though, this story has something for both sides. You've got the "hiatus" aspect of this... I thought the argument about the data was settled. I thought only the A in AGW was up for debate, and not much at that. Now here's something for the other side--I recall reading many years ago, like 20 actually, a long time before AGW was such a hot topic. There was a theory that ice ages were caused by a shutdown of the thermohaline cycle in the North Atlantic. I'm not sure if that's still the theory on ice ages; but it was definitely a mainstream theory when I heard it, and it didn't turn forums into the Middle East every time it was mentioned.

So. For skeptics, a cooling. For AGWers, no cracks in the man-made apocalyptic armour. They can claim that your SUV shutdown the North Atlantic thermo-haline cycle.

And yes, I've taken enough shit... I don't feel like posting with my ID.

Another option (-1, Troll)

bricko (1052210) | about 2 months ago | (#47726121)

Or, it could just be that AGW is utter BS....

Gojira! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726217)

This will thaw him from his long slumber! All will die! (but Tokyo first)

Ocean warming is not news (1)

Graham Dawson (3492667) | about 2 months ago | (#47726237)

This isn't really new. It's been well established that ocean and atmosphere warm at different rates, have their own heat exchange dynamics, and in particular that ocean heat content has been rising continuously while surface temperatures have plateaued.

See, for example: http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... [epa.gov]

And a quote from this 8 month old article http://www.nature.com/news/cli... [nature.com]
"NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming"

It's well known that the heat storage of the oceans is massively greater than the heat storage of the atmosphere. Hence surface temperatures will sooner or later reflect the ongoing increase in heat content of the earth-ocean system.

It's great to have new studies that confirm this - but why tout it as somehow "new"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?