A cold Pacific causing the lack of warming?


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

The uncertainty of science: Global warming scientists have concocted another explanation among dozens for the refusal of the climate to warm since 1998: a cold Pacific!

Where’s the heat? Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, continue to be pumped into the atmosphere, but sometime around 1998, the rise in Earth’s average temperatures slowed, deviating from the rates predicted by models. Scientists have proposed that what some call “the pause” could be the result of a number of factors, including heat storage in deep ocean waters to unexpectedly high amounts of aerosols in the stratosphere helping deflect solar rays back into space. Now, a new study suggests that natural cycles in the Pacific Ocean are the culprit.

Since the end of last El Niño warming event of 1997 to 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean has been in a relatively cool phase—strong enough to offset the warming created by greenhouse gas emissions. But, this is just a temporary balm: When the switch flips and the waters turn warm again, the researchers say, Earth will likely continue warming.

“What this study addresses is what’s better described as a false pause, or slowdown,” rather than a hiatus in warming, says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Some climate change deniers have taken encouragement from the pause, saying they show warming predictions are flawed, but Mann, a co-author on the study, notes that “there have been various explanations for why [the slowdown is happening], none of which involve climate models being fundamentally wrong.” [emphasis mine]

Does no one at the journal Science notice the outright stupidity of the first two paragraphs above? In the first it is posited that all the climate heat we haven’t been seeing could be stored in the oceans. In the second it is posited that a cold Pacific Ocean has offset the warming, thus causing the lack of climate warming.

If the oceans are storing the extra heat, how is it possible for the Pacific to be unusually cold?

We should not be surprised by this stupidity, however. The third paragraph shows that Science is depending on Michael Mann for its climate expertise, a global warming activist who was exposed as a fake scientist, a fraud, and a dishonest corrupter of data in the climategate emails. That this journal still goes to him for his opinions tells us quite a lot about the lack of objectivity at Science. Their use of the word “denier” for scientists who raise questions about global warming also tells us that the journal hasn’t the faintest idea how science works. The very heart of the scientific method demands skepticism. To instead equate skeptics with those who deny the genocide committed by the Nazis suggests that much of the so-called science published by Science is not science but propaganda.

Share

14 comments

  • pzatchok

    How does the Ocean any ocean capture the heat without the heat first passing through the atmosphere and heating that up first?

    And why is there no proof geologically that the oceans can do this magic act?

    All I see is a desperate grasp of a failing new age religion to stay relevant and newsworthy.

  • Phil Berardelli

    Let’s look at this another way that’s perhaps even more damning. Say for the sake of argument this explanation is correct, and the cold Pacific as well as the other oceans have been storing the excess heat, and that is the reason for the warming “pause” of nearly two decades. It then behooves the climate modelers to duplicate the effect. As far as I know, none of the models has done so. Hence there should be no confidence in the ability of the models to predict global climate behavior, and consequently there should be no regard paid to anyone asserted that “the science is settled” or that political actions must be taken to head off an obviously unknown trend in Earth’s climate.

  • Jwing

    What’s next…they’ll claim the “pause” is due to the advent of the personal computer in the 1980’2 thanks to Apple and Microsoft and the subsequent demise of IBM’s selectrix typewriter. It’s highly reminiscent of Apple’s famous 1984 TV commercial.
    What,…my idea sounds crazy?!

  • wodun

    “Michael Mann for its climate expertise, a global warming activist who was exposed as a fake scientist, a fraud, and a dishonest corrupter of data in the climategate emails. ”

    Be careful, Rand Simberg got sued for saying something like that, although in a much ruder manner.

  • wodun

    Excellent observation. Since the models failed to predict the climate accurately, they shouldn’t be used to generate policy.

  • wodun

    That was supposed to be a reply to Phil.

  • wodun

    I thought they determined that the deep oceans were not acting as reservoirs for the missing heat?

    Also, if cold water is effecting the climate, why wouldn’t warm water? It could be argued that the climate as a whole isn’t warming as claimed but that warmer water moving north like the pineapple express or el nino are just weather patterns and not large scale climatic changes.

    Because they are arguing that the cold water isn’t climate change but the warm water currents are climate change.

  • Joe

    Today, I saw an article about some mysterious craters in the Siberian arctic, the jist of the article was that global warming was thawing the permafrost and causing methane explosions, the comments to that article say that the people have bought global warming hook line and sinker!

  • Edward

    The hypothesis that the oceans are storing the supposed excess heat can easily be turned around. If the oceans can store heat, then they must give up that heat at some time.

    The observation of the cooler than “normal” Pacific Ocean is evidence that the recent heating of the atmosphere was actually caused by the ocean as it gave up previously stored heat.

    The higher temperatures of the ocean in the recorded past was the heat that was being released into the atmosphere and resulted in both a warmer atmosphere and a cooler ocean.

    It is as good a hypothesis, and as well thought out, as the other 63 excuses for the atmosphere to have heated in the past and stopped heating in the present.

    For my next trick, I will calculate just how warm the oceans have to get in order to store the heat loss that will bring on the next ice age (due any millennium, now).

  • In my professional use of computer models, the very first thing we did after programming the model was calibrate it. That is, we’d check to see if the model could correctly predict past system behavior within a given error bar. Only after the model demonstrated this ability would we use it to predict future performance. I’ve not seen any evidence that climate science uses this methodology, which likely explains their consistent predictive failure. Yet we’re constantly being coerced into living some sort of 19th century lifestyle while turning over our treasure and freedom on the basis of little more than hand-waving and incantations.

    By the way, I learned in elementary school that heat rises. Is there some special property about ocean water that prevents this? Or is there some mysterious permanent inversion layer in the deep ocean?

  • MIKELL-SIDNEY

    Hey didn’t someone say if you tell a lie long enough it’ll come true. Just like make en a wish

  • Max

    If the ocean was holding heat, then why does it get colder the further down you go? The laws of thermodynamics state that a warmer object will impart its heat to a cooler object. Therefore the ocean must be warmer than the air to warm the air, like a warm ocean breeze… On land, the further down you go, the warmer it gets. In the air, the higher you go, the cooler it gets.
    Does our heat come from the sun? You would think so until you realize that the sun does not go down all summer over Antarctica but the temperature doesn’t often rise above freezing.
    The same experiment can be preformed over the north pole only with different results. With 24 hour sunlight the temperature can get into the 70s and melt the ice.
    In outerspace, the temperature on the full moon is 250°. The average temperature on earth is close to 50°. Is most of the heat never reaching the surface of the earth? (obviously, we’re still alive) that may seem hot, until you factor in the Darkside of the moon is 300° below zero giving the moon an average temperature of 50° below zero! How is our average temperature 100° warmer than the moon? (I would reminding you that we are both in the green zone with the earth receiving less than half the energy of the moon)
    I personally still maintain the assumption that the only heat that comes from the sun is the difference between the low temperatures of night and the high of the day.
    Don’t let Science tradition lead you around by the ring in your nose. Put the pieces of the puzzle together yourself, if it doesn’t make sense then the concept needs to be re-examined. There is a solution to what causes global heating, and it’s source can be reproduced on every examination. And not just on this planet, but every planet with an atmosphere. THINK about it, it’s fun!

  • Darwin Teague

    So the oceans can overcome global warming until they can’t?

  • T. Beals

    AAAS leadership election statements have tended to be multisyllabic mumbles in favor of mom, baseball and apple pie. I’ll look next cycle for anything suggesting a willingness to buck the orthodoxy (I’m not optimistic.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *