• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A New Paper to Explain the Pause

Threegoofs said:
You must be in the wrong section. Based on the OP, accurate information is of no concern here.

I'd like to see the original article, too, or even better, rational interpretation of it by someone without an agenda.

Either way, this paper seems to clarify that AGW exists as predicted, the heat has just been absorbed by the oceans lately.
Click to expand...

I would be curious to learn what inaccurate information you believe was conveyed in the OP. Since Professor Curry accepts conventional AGW orthodoxy, what agenda do you believe she is pursuing. The authors of the paper certainly believe that it supports AGW orthodoxy. That belief is based on their assumption that AGW was the source of about half the recorded heat. Maybe that assumption is valid, maybe it isn't.
 
Threegoofs said:
You must be in the wrong section. Based on the OP, accurate information is of no concern here.

I'd like to see the original article, too, or even better, rational interpretation of it by someone without an agenda.

Either way, this paper seems to clarify that AGW exists as predicted, the heat has just been absorbed by the oceans lately.
Click to expand...

From an author of the paper:

UPDATE via email from KK Tung:
Dear Judy,
Thank you for the informative piece. Some replies to the questions you raised there:
“While Chen and Tung’s argument and mechanism is convincing, it is not at all clear to me from the paper that the amount of heat sequestered in the ocean is commensurate with the TOA radiative imbalance and the amount of heat that would be required to keep the surface temperatures from increasing in the presence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.”
The first part concerning Trenberth’s “missing heat” debate, which is to reconcile the very uncertain TOA radiative imbalance measured by satellites with ocean heat content increase. See the paper by Loeb et al 2012 in Nature. Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group
which basically says that there is no statistically significant inconsistency between the two given the uncertainties. Also it is not that relevant to our current problem of finding where the heat that would have warmed the surface has gone. To answer this question there is no need to use the TOA measurements. To answer the second part of your question, we addressed this in the paper as
Globally, an additional 0.69× 1023 J has been sequestered since 1999 in the 300- to 1500-m layer by 2012 (Fig. 1A), which, if absent, would have made the upper 300 m warm as fast as the upper 1500 m since 1999. Because the latter has an uninterrupted positive trend, there would have been no slowdown of the warming of the surface or the upper layers. Therefore, the enhanced ocean heat sink is the main cause for the current slowing in surface warming.
The statement of Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. was written by the reporter using results from our PNAS paper 2013.
“That said, the hiatus since 1998 is warmer than the previous two hiatus periods (the so called stair step), so this brings us back to wondering about ‘coming out’ of the Little Ice Age. Anthropogenic warming does not explain why the 21st century hiatus is warmer than the mid 20th century hiatus which is warmer than the turn of the 20th century hiatus. The sun, or longer term ocean vacillations/oscillations are candidates, with some ‘juicing’ in the latter quarter of the 20th century by anthropogenic greenhouse warming.”
The anthropogenic warming I think is what causes the staircases to rise. Because of global warming, the current stair step is higher than the previous step. It is not from coming out of the Little Ice Age or the Sun, as Tung and Zhou discussed in our PNAS paper.
Link to PNAS paper [here].
 
Threegoofs said:
You must be in the wrong section. Based on the OP, accurate information is of no concern here.

I'd like to see the original article, too, or even better, rational interpretation of it by someone without an agenda.

Either way, this paper seems to clarify that AGW exists as predicted, the heat has just been absorbed by the oceans lately.
Click to expand...

Additional author input:

UPDATE #2 via email from KK Tung
Dear Judy,
The argument on the roughly 50-50 attribution of the forced vs unforced warming for the last two and half decades of the 20th century is actually quite simple. If one is blaming internal variability for canceling out the anthropogenically forced warming during the current hiatus, one must admit that the former is not negligible compared to the latter, and the two are probably roughly of the same magnitude. Then when the internal cycle is of the different sign in the latter part of the 20th century, it must have added to the forced response. Assuming the rate of forced warming has not changed during the period concerned, then the two combined must be roughly twice the forced warming during the last two and half decades of the 20th century.
Gavin was incorrect to say that Tung and Zhou (2013) assumed that anthropogenic warming response is linear. We did not assume that. The method uses a linear function in the intermediate step. If the actual anthropogenic warming response is not linear, the difference will remain in the residual and it was added back. In fact we repeated the calculation using many different but reasonable nonlinear functions in the intermediate step and obtained approximately the same result.
—KK
 
longview said:
When I hear people talk about the "pause" or missing heat, it is somewhat puzzling,
Like physics says some energy has been captured, and said capture should result in a heat increase.
We are told after all the the basic physics of CO2 as a green house gas is over century old.
The problem is, the direct response is already present in the temperature record.
The only thing "missing" is the theorized additional forcing.
That amplification of the direct response heating that would cause global destruction.
It is not like the direct response formula, where they can see an energy imbalance, and translate that
to a temperature increase.
It is only a theorized set of feedback loops which have not been validated.
Is any heat missing? it may never have existed in the first place.
I am trying to put together the data to show the direct response curve since 1880 vs the temperature.
will post in a bit time permiting.
Click to expand...
It took a bit of looking but there is a record of CO2 levels between 1880 and 1960 from a ice core
called Law Dome.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png
Putting this together with the NOAA Mauna Loa data,
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
I was able to get reasonably
accurate CO2 levels at 5 year intervals from 1880 to 2014.
The temperature record I got from the GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Putting this together with the IPCC's Baede et al reference for the direct response of CO2 of 1.2 C for each doubling,
I was able to compare the absolute temperature, with what the direct response should create according to the IPCC.
CO2_temp.webp
 
longview said:
It took a bit of looking but there is a record of CO2 levels between 1880 and 1960 from a ice core
called Law Dome.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png
Putting this together with the NOAA Mauna Loa data,
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
I was able to get reasonably
accurate CO2 levels at 5 year intervals from 1880 to 2014.
The temperature record I got from the GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Putting this together with the IPCC's Baede et al reference for the direct response of CO2 of 1.2 C for each doubling,
I was able to compare the absolute temperature, with what the direct response should create according to the IPCC.
View attachment 67171888
Click to expand...

This reminds me of monks in the 15th century calculating how many angels can dance of the head of a pin.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link:

That certain renowned medieval scholars considered similar questions is clear. Aquinas's Summa Theologica, written c. 1270, includes discussion of several questions regarding angels such as, "Can several angels be in the same place?"[4]

1270 = 13th century
Click to expand...

Which is why I have the ACTUAL question a couple centuries wiggle room.
 
Threegoofs said:
This reminds me of monks in the 15th century calculating how many angels can dance of the head of a pin.
Click to expand...

We can dispense with your debate pattern.

You first make some irrelevant condescending comment.

Next you make some vague appeal to authority, like the entire IPCC,
or the number of peer reviewed article graphic.
(It could also be the blogger graph which combines Marcott, AB1, and HadCrut4.)

After a fey cycles, you state you have already posted the data.
when it is pointed out that you have posted no actual data,
you reply the person just doesn’t understand the data you did not post.

Lastly you reply (without the reply button) that you have won the discussion.

If you would like to participate in a discussion about what levels of AGW
actually exists, please bring some real data to the discussion.

If you have no desire to have a real discussion, (or are incapable)
Please proceed to your final step, where you just stop posting on a thread.
 
I think I'll reply without the reply button....since I follow threads, not notifications, and I encourage you to do the same. It's an old usenet habit, I guess.

I've presented data. More importantly, I've presented actual scientific backing for the data interpretation. You're interpretations remind me of anti-vaxers....it all has some veil of scientific logic, but it's not based on anything. And to extend the analogy, then you come up with some log function math on why vaccines are dangerous and you get offended because I won't bother to check if your math is correct.

I'm merely pointing out that people who are way more qualified than you (or me) have put a lot of effort into this problem, and virtually all agree it is a major problem.

If you can't handle being shown that every time you repost your nutty math problem about CO2 forcing (and Baede, et al....which is actually the IPCC!), I'm sorry. But when one sees a charlatan, it's often beneficial to point it out so others will know.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think I'll reply without the reply button....since I follow threads, not notifications, and I encourage you to do the same. It's an old usenet habit, I guess.

I've presented data. More importantly, I've presented actual scientific backing for the data interpretation. You're interpretations remind me of anti-vaxers....it all has some veil of scientific logic, but it's not based on anything. And to extend the analogy, then you come up with some log function math on why vaccines are dangerous and you get offended because I won't bother to check if your math is correct.

I'm merely pointing out that people who are way more qualified than you (or me) have put a lot of effort into this problem, and virtually all agree it is a major problem.

If you can't handle being shown that every time you repost your nutty math problem about CO2 forcing (and Baede, et al....which is actually the IPCC!), I'm sorry. But when one sees a charlatan, it's often beneficial to point it out so others will know.
Click to expand...
And you managed to cover most of the pattern of your responses in one post.
You shifter the order a bit.
I've presented data. More importantly, I've presented actual scientific backing for the data interpretation.
Click to expand...
Here is the claim of data presentation. Please cite post #?
I'm merely pointing out that people who are way more qualified than you (or me) have put a lot of effort into this problem, and virtually all agree it is a major problem.
Click to expand...
Here is the appeal to authority.
and you replied without the reply button.
You had already covered irrelevant condescending comment with post #30.
Since the empirical data does not support any additional forcing (beyond background noise),
Why do you think any additional energy should be present?
Energy after all can neither be created or destroyed.

is in response to known effects
 
Threegoofs said:
See...appeal to authority makes sense when one actually uses an authority!
Click to expand...
The authority to which one appeals would also have to validate additional forcing.
So far that validation is missing from the empirical data.
 
Threegoofs said:
Says....a non-authority on the subject.
Click to expand...
Actually not, any reference, authoritative or not has the same requirements.
The data must support that which has been theorized.
At the very core of the the IPCC predictions is this concept that the direct response warming from an increase in CO2 levels,
will be amplified to produce between .3 and 3.3 degrees C of additional warming.
The direct response warming of 1.2 C plus the additional forcing to get to a range of 1.5 to 4.5 C of predicted warming.
(from a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm)
The empirical data shows that we have warmed .8 C since 1880.
Any way you choose to model the doubling curve, it will come out to around 50% of the effect of doubling at 400 ppm of CO2.
(do the math yourself, don't take my word for it, and show your work.)
Fyi, at the basic level none of this is complicated.
The IPCC predicts additional warming, Any warming beyond the direct response is in the statistical noise.(.2 C over 133 years.)
 
longview said:
Actually not, any reference, authoritative or not has the same requirements.
The data must support that which has been theorized.
At the very core of the the IPCC predictions is this concept that the direct response warming from an increase in CO2 levels,
will be amplified to produce between .3 and 3.3 degrees C of additional warming.
The direct response warming of 1.2 C plus the additional forcing to get to a range of 1.5 to 4.5 C of predicted warming.
(from a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm)
The empirical data shows that we have warmed .8 C since 1880.
Any way you choose to model the doubling curve, it will come out to around 50% of the effect of doubling at 400 ppm of CO2.
(do the math yourself, don't take my word for it, and show your work.)
Fyi, at the basic level none of this is complicated.
The IPCC predicts additional warming, Any warming beyond the direct response is in the statistical noise.(.2 C over 133 years.)
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nah. By the 15th no one cared. That's already the Renaissance.
Click to expand...

By the 15th Century, the great philosophical question concerned how may heretics could be tortured at the same time.

The Inquisition. Another example of religion paving the way to greater understanding through philosophical inquiry.
 
longview said:
The authority to which one appeals would also have to validate additional forcing.
So far that validation is missing from the empirical data.
Click to expand...



This is fun.

Debating with you, Goofs is like a frog in slowing warming water. He doesn't even realized he's being cooked.
 
code1211 said:
By the 15th Century, the great philosophical question concerned how may heretics could be tortured at the same time.

The Inquisition. Another example of religion paving the way to greater understanding through philosophical inquiry.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. So much for Spain. I'd rather have been in Italy.
 
longview said:
The direct response warming of 1.2 C plus the additional forcing to get to a range of 1.5 to 4.5 C of predicted warming.
(from a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm)
The empirical data shows that we have warmed .8 C since 1880.
Any way you choose to model the doubling curve, it will come out to around 50% of the effect of doubling at 400 ppm of CO2.
(do the math yourself, don't take my word for it, and show your work.)
Fyi, at the basic level none of this is complicated.
The IPCC predicts additional warming, Any warming beyond the direct response is in the statistical noise.(.2 C over 133 years.)
Click to expand...

An increase in radiative forcing (W/m^2) due to more atmospheric GHGs would presumably be more or less instantaneous, but that doesn't translate into an instantaneous increase in global annual temperatures (°C). It takes time to fully heat the climate system, most notably the oceans - hence the difference between the transient climate response to incrementally increasing forcing, and its equilibrium sensitivity. Hansen et al 2004, for example, estimated that for a new radiative forcing value it would take some 25-40 years for 60% of the full effect to be manifest in annual surface temperatures. Alternatively, Wetheral et al 2001 suggested that "the climate system's transient SAT response lags the present day radiative forcing by approximately 20 years, leading to a present-day warming commitment of about 1.0K."

In other words we're looking at either c. 0.45 degrees' warming from CO2 and 0.35 from other factors (based on 100% of emissions up to 25 years ago and 60% of emissions since, an over-estimate compared with Hansen et al 2004), or else 1 degree of total warming in the pipeline of which 0.6 degrees is from CO2.

Our estimates are far too simplistic to be particularly meaningful, but they do support the conclusion that if present trends continue (CO2 reaches 560ppm by c. 2070 and continues rising) we'll be commiting ourselves to 1.2 degrees or more of additional warming in the next hundred years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom