• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

MrT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
10,087
Reaction score
3,370
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.

The deep oceans ate my global warming . That's old news. LOL
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.
Well, that is good or bad?
 

MrT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, that is good or bad?
An interesting question because there are two ways of looking at this find: The superficially "good" thing about this find is that it helps to clarify and explain for the layman how Global Warming can still occur despite the fact that if you started with the previous hottest year on record (1998) and then went to 2013, you allegedly had a "pause" in the warming. Now scientists kept saying that the warming still existed (and 2014 being the new hottest year on record helped to establish that fact...along with the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record took place after 2000), but there were a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory. Finding where that warming has gone will help make those arguments even more absurd and easily dismissable.

But ultimately, the issue is very bad because a warming of the ocean helps to contribute to higher sea levels, more powerful tropic storms, dramatic impacts on global weather patterns, and it can severely disrupt ocean ecosystems - particularly coral.

Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
An interesting question because there are two ways of looking at this find: The superficially "good" thing about this find is that it helps to clarify and explain for the layman how Global Warming can still occur despite the fact that if you started with the previous hottest year on record (1998) and then went to 2013, you allegedly had a "pause" in the warming. Now scientists kept saying that the warming still existed (and 2014 being the new hottest year on record helped to establish that fact...along with the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record took place after 2000), but there were a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory. Finding where that warming has gone will help make those arguments even more absurd and easily dismissable.

But ultimately, the issue is very bad because a warming of the ocean helps to contribute to higher sea levels, more powerful tropic storms, dramatic impacts on global weather patterns, and it can severely disrupt ocean ecosystems - particularly coral.

Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
I do not think that it is quite honest to say that " a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory". The implication is just not on. After all, the climate people were and are agitating for a huge amount of spending that at 1998 technology would have caused a major reduction in living standards and, when they were asked why their predictions were not sound, they could not say why. That is an absolute no-go, when you want somebody's money.
Even with today's technology there will be some changes that are best not talked about, if one wants the public to vote for the investments the 2 percent goal requires. I am watching in Germany, where everyone and the cat are all hipped up on CO2 and all and the lash back to more or less effective measures is severe. The really efficient instruments nobody dares employ.

And an other thing. Do you really believe the conclusions? Is it really a good idea to start investing in inefficient technology? Is the technology even efficient. I have been looking at this stuff in one way or an other for quite some time. And I have seen some rather bad investments made on sloppy research. I went through that Economic study by N Stern rather closely, as it overlaps with my area of professional. And to tell you the truth, the thing is so optimistic, that a less kind person than I might call it a gross piece of propaganda. And you know? I do not think that would be far off mark. To do that type of thing and going out demanding a massive change in society without your numbers straight? That has done a lot of damage to the call to arms.
 

MrT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I do not think that it is quite honest to say that " a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory". The implication is just not on. After all, the climate people were and are agitating for a huge amount of spending that at 1998 technology would have caused a major reduction in living standards and, when they were asked why their predictions were not sound, they could not say why. That is an absolute no-go, when you want somebody's money.
You claim that statement is dishonest, but the only reason you offer is an excuse for why they made these statements - i.e. people did not want to make the investment towards mitigation because they did not not want to invest a lot of money of a science they viewed as unsettled.

This study helps to confirm what 97% of climatologists were claiming during the time period that deniers were alleging that the science was unsettled. Unfortunately, we have already hit the point where the 2 C goal is very unlikely unless we enacted some of the most extreme mitigation efforts - efforts that no one is willing to embrace. Do we need to invest in the technology, even when it is inefficient? Absolutely. We can still mitigate our damage and avoid the worst case scenarios, but we must continue to push through the small reasons for hesitance and embrace technology that will not only help mitigate global warming, but will make our environment cleaner and less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You claim that statement is dishonest, but the only reason you offer is an excuse for why they made these statements - i.e. people did not want to make the investment towards mitigation because they did not not want to invest a lot of money of a science they viewed as unsettled.

This study helps to confirm what 97% of climatologists were claiming during the time period that deniers were alleging that the science was unsettled. Unfortunately, we have already hit the point where the 2 C goal is very unlikely unless we enacted some of the most extreme mitigation efforts - efforts that no one is willing to embrace. Do we need to invest in the technology, even when it is inefficient? Absolutely. We can still mitigate our damage and avoid the worst case scenarios, but we must continue to push through the small reasons for hesitance and embrace technology that will not only help mitigate global warming, but will make our environment cleaner and less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
I am not quite sure, what want to say there. Of course they did not want to invest on science that continually came up against numbers it could not explain. That seems quite natural. If someone shows me a project and there are mistakes in the mat or data or, if there are questions that the projector did not think of and cannot answer? You would be crazy to commit. You might finance some more research and experiment with the technology, but you would be negligent to invest other people's money. As an investment manager you could go to jail even here in Germany.
 

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Holy crap, looking at that distribution and the heat capacity of H2O, ..................................

we're lucky (at the expense of a lot of change to marine ecosystems) that much heat went into the oceans and not the atmosphere.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not think that it is quite honest to say that " a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory". The implication is just not on. After all, the climate people were and are agitating for a huge amount of spending that at 1998 technology would have caused a major reduction in living standards
As opposed to doing nothing, which won't cost us a penny? The drought in Syria caused a civil war. What's happened to their living standards?

The Stern Review estimated that unmitigated climate change will cost us 5-10% of GDP globally, compared to 1-2% of GDP for mitigation. Why any conservative would think that mitigation "costs" anything is beyond me.

and, when they were asked why their predictions were not sound, they could not say why.
Kinda like when we ask a skeptic to point to a prediction since IPCC's First Assessment Report that really isn't sound. All you get are blog postings from bloggers. What you don't get is science from scientists.

Even with today's technology there will be some changes that are best not talked about, if one wants the public to vote for the investments the 2 percent goal requires. I am watching in Germany, where everyone and the cat are all hipped up on CO2 and all and the lash back to more or less effective measures is severe. The really efficient instruments nobody dares employ.
A number of countries have already decarbonized their electric grids, and there is no good reason we can't. The best way is the fastest way, and the fastest way is the cheapest way: hydro and geothermal where available, wind and solar up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest. Once the grid is decarbonized, we transition the remaining fossil use to electrical, and we're done. This is essentially the "high nuclear" option outlined in the DDPP report -- which is not only cheapest, but might even end up being free, depending on the future price of fossil fuels.

And an other thing. Do you really believe the conclusions? Is it really a good idea to start investing in inefficient technology? Is the technology even efficient. I have been looking at this stuff in one way or an other for quite some time. And I have seen some rather bad investments made on sloppy research. I went through that Economic study by N Stern rather closely, as it overlaps with my area of professional. And to tell you the truth, the thing is so optimistic, that a less kind person than I might call it a gross piece of propaganda. And you know? I do not think that would be far off mark. To do that type of thing and going out demanding a massive change in society without your numbers straight? That has done a lot of damage to the call to arms.
What specifically in Stern do you take exception to? Every machine built by man needs to be replaced in a few decades or less, so why not replace fossil generators with non-fossil generators, as long as you're going to replace anyway? That way, the incremental cost is a fraction of the total outlay.
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As opposed to doing nothing, which won't cost us a penny? The drought in Syria caused a civil war. What's happened to their living standards?

The Stern Review estimated that unmitigated climate change will cost us 5-10% of GDP globally, compared to 1-2% of GDP for mitigation. Why any conservative would think that mitigation "costs" anything is beyond me.


Kinda like when we ask a skeptic to point to a prediction since IPCC's First Assessment Report that really isn't sound. All you get are blog postings from bloggers. What you don't get is science from scientists.



A number of countries have already decarbonized their electric grids, and there is no good reason we can't. The best way is the fastest way, and the fastest way is the cheapest way: hydro and geothermal where available, wind and solar up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest. Once the grid is decarbonized, we transition the remaining fossil use to electrical, and we're done. This is essentially the "high nuclear" option outlined in the DDPP report -- which is not only cheapest, but might even end up being free, depending on the future price of fossil fuels.



What specifically in Stern do you take exception to? Every machine built by man needs to be replaced in a few decades or less, so why not replace fossil generators with non-fossil generators, as long as you're going to replace anyway? That way, the incremental cost is a fraction of the total outlay.
It has been quite a while since I read the Stern report, but the defect that sticks out in memory was the method of valuing future cash flow. That invalidated the calculations and so the conclusions to the point of being quite dubious. This means that the 1or 2 percent vs 5 or10 percent is just not true.

And sure you can replace power plants and decentralized production. It is just the consequences that the population doesn't want and, of course, the inefficient method. It is stupid to go about system change in that way. If we want to reduce climatically active gas emissions then the way to go is via certificate trading and not government management.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It has been quite a while since I read the Stern report, but the defect that sticks out in memory was the method of valuing future cash flow. That invalidated the calculations and so the conclusions to the point of being quite dubious. This means that the 1or 2 percent vs 5 or10 percent is just not true.

And sure you can replace power plants and decentralized production. It is just the consequences that the population doesn't want and, of course, the inefficient method. It is stupid to go about system change in that way. If we want to reduce climatically active gas emissions then the way to go is via certificate trading and not government management.
The consequences -- which is mitigation of climate change -- is exactly what the population does want. Trading schemes are just one way to accomplish that, and not necessarily the best way. Tax and subsidy works too, and is more comprehensive and easier to administer.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The consequences -- which is mitigation of climate change -- is exactly what the population does want. Trading schemes are just one way to accomplish that, and not necessarily the best way. Tax and subsidy works too, and is more comprehensive and easier to administer.
I live in one of the countries that most energetically wants to mitigate climate change and have been following it for a good number of years. It turns out that the population wants mitigation but not in its own back yard. People buy increasing amounts of meat, use huge quantities of plastic packaging, take trips further and further afield, refuse higher prices of gas, block power transmission required for alternative energy production etc. The "people" want things until they know the price.

No. Tax and subsidy usually does not work at all as well at reallocation as auctioned and traded certificates do. But that is the problem. Most people do not take the time to understand the problems. Central organization is not as efficient at allocation as prices are. And anyone that tells you otherwise is not knowledgeable or lying.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.


Exactly how did they collect this data when there were no instruments in the Deep ocean to collect it?
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
An interesting question because there are two ways of looking at this find: The superficially "good" thing about this find is that it helps to clarify and explain for the layman how Global Warming can still occur despite the fact that if you started with the previous hottest year on record (1998) and then went to 2013, you allegedly had a "pause" in the warming. Now scientists kept saying that the warming still existed (and 2014 being the new hottest year on record helped to establish that fact...along with the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record took place after 2000), but there were a great deal of individuals in America, including politicians, who used that "pause" as an excuse to denounce the theory. Finding where that warming has gone will help make those arguments even more absurd and easily dismissable.

But ultimately, the issue is very bad because a warming of the ocean helps to contribute to higher sea levels, more powerful tropic storms, dramatic impacts on global weather patterns, and it can severely disrupt ocean ecosystems - particularly coral.

Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA


Are you saying that the temperature readings at the surface reveal the temperatures in the Deep Ocean?
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.


From your link:

<snip>
Over the last few years, a likely scenario has begun to emerge. Modeling studies show that the cooling of the surface of the Pacific is probably being balanced by more rapid warming in deeper parts of the Atlantic or the Pacific. What’s more, a recent paper in Nature Climate Change used observational data and models to demonstrate increased heat transport from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean over the last decade. Clearly, the pathways by which Earth’s oceans process heat seem to be changing.
<snip>

Just judging by the words chosen here, this writer has no confidence at all in his asssetions and is allowing ample exit routes if anyone tries to pin him down.

(What? You thought I said it would happen? Oh, no, no, no... I was only pointing to what seemed to be true in the light of the prevailing understandings of that time.

You think you understood what you thought you heard me say, but what you don't realize is that what I said is not what I meant.)
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You claim that statement is dishonest, but the only reason you offer is an excuse for why they made these statements - i.e. people did not want to make the investment towards mitigation because they did not not want to invest a lot of money of a science they viewed as unsettled.

This study helps to confirm what 97% of climatologists were claiming during the time period that deniers were alleging that the science was unsettled. Unfortunately, we have already hit the point where the 2 C goal is very unlikely unless we enacted some of the most extreme mitigation efforts - efforts that no one is willing to embrace. Do we need to invest in the technology, even when it is inefficient? Absolutely. We can still mitigate our damage and avoid the worst case scenarios, but we must continue to push through the small reasons for hesitance and embrace technology that will not only help mitigate global warming, but will make our environment cleaner and less dependent on foreign sources of energy.



Your argument is almost identical to the loons of the TV show Ancient Aliens.

If there were aliens guiding the activities and planning of the Egyptians, then isn't it more a plausible explanation for why the Pyramids have Pi included in every measurement than to believe that this stone age culture had actually discovered Pi?
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As opposed to doing nothing, which won't cost us a penny? The drought in Syria caused a civil war. What's happened to their living standards?

The Stern Review estimated that unmitigated climate change will cost us 5-10% of GDP globally, compared to 1-2% of GDP for mitigation. Why any conservative would think that mitigation "costs" anything is beyond me.


Kinda like when we ask a skeptic to point to a prediction since IPCC's First Assessment Report that really isn't sound. All you get are blog postings from bloggers. What you don't get is science from scientists.



A number of countries have already decarbonized their electric grids, and there is no good reason we can't. The best way is the fastest way, and the fastest way is the cheapest way: hydro and geothermal where available, wind and solar up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest. Once the grid is decarbonized, we transition the remaining fossil use to electrical, and we're done. This is essentially the "high nuclear" option outlined in the DDPP report -- which is not only cheapest, but might even end up being free, depending on the future price of fossil fuels.



What specifically in Stern do you take exception to? Every machine built by man needs to be replaced in a few decades or less, so why not replace fossil generators with non-fossil generators, as long as you're going to replace anyway? That way, the incremental cost is a fraction of the total outlay.



I thought it was George Bush that Caused ISIL.

Now you're saying it was George Bush and AGW.

Let's go for the Trifecta: GWB, AGW and Exploitation of the world by Evil White Industrialists.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What specifically in Stern do you take exception to? Every machine built by man needs to be replaced in a few decades or less, so why not replace fossil generators with non-fossil generators, as long as you're going to replace anyway? That way, the incremental cost is a fraction of the total outlay.


So we can be pretty sure that in a couple decades, there will be nothing better to use as a replacement than there is now.

The creativity of Man is ended and we must use whatever the best bad choice available today might be.

Good plan!
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
6,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It has been quite a while since I read the Stern report, but the defect that sticks out in memory was the method of valuing future cash flow. That invalidated the calculations and so the conclusions to the point of being quite dubious. This means that the 1or 2 percent vs 5 or10 percent is just not true.

And sure you can replace power plants and decentralized production. It is just the consequences that the population doesn't want and, of course, the inefficient method. It is stupid to go about system change in that way. If we want to reduce climatically active gas emissions then the way to go is via certificate trading and not government management.



Why not allow the innovative creativity of individuals to be exercised to create the solution that, WHEN AVAILABLE, becomes the obvious and unavoidable option to the ICE fueled by fossil fuels?

How many whale oil lamps are in your house right now?
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
14,296
Reaction score
5,772
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
One might wonder as to whether the anti-AGW people who post on the internets are getting paid for their words but we all 'know' it's the loony warmist types known as climatologists who are really raking in the dollars/euros - right?

For some reason those 'rational' ones who denigrate the science fail to note the cash being spent on the propaganda machinery by fossil fuel industries - well some of them still pay out, others have quit

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Why not allow the innovative creativity of individuals to be exercised to create the solution that, WHEN AVAILABLE, becomes the obvious and unavoidable option to the ICE fueled by fossil fuels?

How many whale oil lamps are in your house right now?
Thing is, that is exactly, what I would think fine. I am not the one asking for an inefficient energy sector and no meat on the poor man's table.
 

MrT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Exactly how did they collect this data when there were no instruments in the Deep ocean to collect it?
Satellites are capable of detecting heat at different depths as far as I know.
 

MrT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From your link:

<snip>
Over the last few years, a likely scenario has begun to emerge. Modeling studies show that the cooling of the surface of the Pacific is probably being balanced by more rapid warming in deeper parts of the Atlantic or the Pacific. What’s more, a recent paper in Nature Climate Change used observational data and models to demonstrate increased heat transport from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean over the last decade. Clearly, the pathways by which Earth’s oceans process heat seem to be changing.
<snip>

Just judging by the words chosen here, this writer has no confidence at all in his asssetions and is allowing ample exit routes if anyone tries to pin him down.

(What? You thought I said it would happen? Oh, no, no, no... I was only pointing to what seemed to be true in the light of the prevailing understandings of that time.

You think you understood what you thought you heard me say, but what you don't realize is that what I said is not what I meant.)
I'm sure that is an example of good journalism when discussing a topic that is complex and lacks complete clarity. They tend to avoid dogmatic statements unless absolutely certain, so pointing out less than dogmatic language in an journalist's article which attempts to explain and discuss the conclusions of numerous experts is not really a very strong critique.
 

MrT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Your argument is almost identical to the loons of the TV show Ancient Aliens.

If there were aliens guiding the activities and planning of the Egyptians, then isn't it more a plausible explanation for why the Pyramids have Pi included in every measurement than to believe that this stone age culture had actually discovered Pi?
You should work on your analogy. As it stands, it is pretty confusing and ****ty.
 

Lord of Planar

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
40,293
Reaction score
11,731
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.
The paper simply offers possible reasons for the hiatus. It is a hypothesis, with no empirical evidence to be true.
 
Top Bottom