6 comments

• Rene Borbon

  August 21, 2014 at 8:09 pm

  A lot of speculation in the article, grasping to explain why the climate is not warming. Fact is, the computer models are wrong, the scientists have been wrong because they don’t understand the complexities of climate on a planetary scale. Thank you!
• Joe

  August 22, 2014 at 8:21 am

  Sounds like they are trying to make a case for the heat going to greater depths with circulation, (the heat is missing) I am not buying it. Heat rises.
• Edward

  August 22, 2014 at 2:07 pm

  If the heat is “hiding” in the oceans, then at some point that “hidden” heat must come back out, otherwise the oceans would eventually boil from millennia of hiding heat.

  So why do they think that the previous warming of the Earth (circa 1970 to 2000) was caused by man rather than by the oceans as they release previously hidden heat?
• M D Mill

  August 23, 2014 at 7:25 am

  All publications of this article have ignored the most amazing aspect of this paper.
  In their press statement, Chen and Tung make this remarkable statement:

  “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.” – Chen and Tung

  I think they did not make this statement bluntly in the paper itself, because they know they would be “cutting their own throats” in the climate “crisis” science community.
  Amazing. The global temp rise 1970-2000
  completely due to CO2 is the only observable, well measured “evidence” for the alarmist narrative. This paper invalidates this evidence, and Tung is a highly respected peer reviewed researcher…and the AGW component may be less than this half of the above stated “global warming”.

  This paper (and Tung’s 2013 paper on the 20th century temp rise) are I think more important than you realize. Tung is, I think, walking a fine line… but the further IMPLICATIONS of his researches, may be the beginning of the end for the alarmist narrative. Tung thinks the temp rise rate in the 20’th century was essentially constant, except for some added natural zero sum oscillations…while the rise rate of CO2 concentration changed by a factor of 5!!!!!!!
  Think of that!!! Does that indicate a strong or weak relation between CO2 and global temp??!!
  A similar argument can be made about sea level rise rate(~constant) and CO2 concentration rise rate (changed by a factor of 5!!!)

  See Judith Curry’s blog comments and Tung’s further explanation for his statements
  [This should get a further commentary on your blog…its that important–IMO]

  http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/21/cause-of-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

  Regards… M D Mill
• Michael

  August 23, 2014 at 8:37 am

  I’m struck by the irony: warming is anthropogenic but cooling is “natural”
• Robert Zimmerman

  August 23, 2014 at 8:40 am

  Very interesting but my opinion of this paper remains the same. It was written and researched by good scientists, willing to keep open minds. However, their conclusions remain very preliminary and uncertain, and much of the discussion on Curry’s website makes me think of the phrase “the chattering classes.” That is not to criticize them, but to note that as much as they discuss this, they still don’t know enough for anyone to come to any strong conclusions.

  What I can say is that the openness that Curry and T’ung are hopeful signs for the climate field. These scientists are not intimidated by the bullies, and are willing to challenge the accepted wisdoms of the global warming advocates.