Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least 10 separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific trade winds 9) ‘Coincidence’ 10) ‘Stadium Waves’


By: - Climate DepotJanuary 14, 2014 12:55 AM with 36 comments

10) Update Feb. 28, 2014 via WattsUpWithThat.comStadium Waves. Wyatt and Curry 2013. Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming. ‘The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures’

Update Feb. 27, 2014: A new excuse (#10) of the global warming ‘pause’ according to NASA scientists — ‘Coincidence!’ — ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’

Update Feb. 9, 2014: New paper finds excuse #8 for the ‘pause’ in global warming: Pacific trade winds

#

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine  ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9)  ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’

Welcome to the world of ‘settled science’. With the latest study now placing blame on Sun for the ‘pause’ in global temperatures, that means there have been at least five seven eight nine ten separate explanations to attempt to explain the standstill in global warming. There is seemingly no end to warmists’ attempts to explain the global warming standstill.  

Update Feb. 28, 2014: Der Spiegel On 15-Year Pause: ‘Biggest Mystery In Climate Science’: ‘Climate models had never expected the pause: Only 3 of 114 climate simulations were able to reproduce the trend of the past years, the IPCC concludes in its latest report. The reason for the deviation between models and observations is unclear.’

As blogger Tom Nelson noted: ‘If we don’t understand lack of warming post-1998, how can we understand warming pre-1998?’

Let’s review: 

1) Yet Another Explanation! New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! Published in journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences

2) THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! NEW PAPER BY KEVIN TRENBERTH: GLOBAL WARMING ‘PAUSE’ DUE TO PACIFIC OCEAN CYCLE (more here:

3) Chinese coal caused the ‘pause’, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study blamed Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. Global warming proponents essentially claimed that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming

4) The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon

5) The ‘pause’ never existed and presto, warmists readjusted Arctic temperatures to alter past global temperatures. See: Say What?! After years trying to ‘explain away’ the flatline/pause/standstill’ in global temperatures, warmists now readjust past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed! – See: Presto! There was no global temperature standstill! Warmists rewrite temperature data to claim: ‘Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half’ (also see:  Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on the Cowtan & Way ‘pausebuster’: ‘Is there anything useful [in it]?’)

6) Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming, says CU study – March 2013: A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight — dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide. The study results essentially exonerate Asia, including India and China, two countries that are estimated to have increased their industrial sulfur dioxide emissions by about 60 percent from 2000 to 2010 through coal burning…Small amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth’s surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet. Neely said previous observations suggest that increases in stratospheric aerosols since 2000 have counterbalanced as much as 25 percent of the warming scientists blame on human greenhouse gas emissions. “This new study indicates it is emissions from small to moderate volcanoes that have been slowing the warming of the planet.”

7) Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming – 2010 Science Mag.: Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.’

8) Update Feb. 9, 2014: New paper finds excuse #8 for the ‘pause’ in global warming: Pacific trade winds: A paper published today in Nature Climate Change adds the eighth excuse for the ‘pause’ in global warming: strengthened Pacific trade winds, which according to the authors, were “not captured [simulated] by climate models.” On the basis of those same highly-flawed climate models, the authors predict rapid global warming will resume in a decade or so when those trade winds abate.

9) Update Feb. 28, 2014 via WattsUpWithThat.comStadium Waves. Wyatt and Curry 2013. Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming. In a recent paper, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry posited about “Stadium Waves” and climate, suggesting that the ‘stadium-wave’ signal propagates like the cheer known as “the wave” at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a circular or oval stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience…The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures. “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012. 

10) Update: Feb. 27, 2014: A new excuse (#9) of the global warming ‘pause’ according to NASA scientists — ‘Coincidence!’ — ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’: NASA’s Gavin Schmidt & colleagues finds ‘that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992’ — Latest excuse (excuse #9) for global temperature standstill mocked by skeptics: ‘Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and ‘reanalyses’ of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.’

#

There is a potential 11th cause of the pause as well. See: 

Another cause of ‘pause’?! New Study: ‘Smell of forest pine can limit climate change’ – ‘Pine forest smell could be the smell that actually limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world’ – Smell of Pine May Save us From Climate Doom!? Study published in the journal Nature: ‘New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change. Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests. These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form’ — Cooling effect: The authors believe that this is playing a significant role in reducing the impact of rising temperatures. They argue that this effect is likely to strengthen in the future. ‘In a warmer world, photosynthesis will become faster with rising CO2, which will lead to more vegetation and more emissions of these vapours,’ said lead author, Dr Mikael Ehn, now based at the University of Helsinki. ‘This should produce more cloud droplets and this should then have a cooling impact, it should be a damping effect.’ Dr Ehn believes the vapours could have a significant impact in the medium term. ‘If you go into a pine forest and notice that pine forest smell, that could be the smell that actually limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world.’

Related Link: 

Updated March 2014 Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

clip_image002

 

 


  • mtc7

    Here are a few more with scientific backing:

    – Large number of medium volcanic eruptions since 2000: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu

    – Reduction of stratospheric water vapor: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

    Note as well that “the ocean ate my warming” has several “explanations”.

    And I just read of a new one regarding the NAO which doesn’t have legs yet but hey throw it on the pile: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/nao-driven-cooling-may-offset-global-warming-for-next-15-years.html

    • ssec1968

      So what you’re saying is that the science isn’t settled.

      • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

        Science has NEVER been settled…. the key lesson of the history of science is HUMILITY!
        Aristotle, Kepler, Lagrange, Newtonian mechanics, Einstein relativity, General relativity, Quantum mechanics, String Theory, etc. …they fall like ducks in a shooting gallery as we continue to learn that what we thought was reality was merely the shadow of our ignorance.

  • marque2

    They already goosed the temps since 1998 by about 0.5 degC to try to make it seem warmer and reduced temps before 1959 by a similar amount. In fact all global warming for the past hundred years can be explained by NOAA monkeying. Now the hypothesis is still not panning out so they plan to adjust the temps even higher. Ice will cover most of the globe and NOAA will still report the hottest year ever

  • Mike H

    Sheesh. Took ’em long enough. The warmists are getting slow See what happens when panic sets in.

  • Salvatore Del Prete

    Subject: the true solar climate connection

    First of all solar activity from 1980-2005 was above average not average or below as this article tries to convey. If anything from the period 1980-2005 solar activity would have aided in a rise in the global temperatures. It was NOT until post 2005 that solar activity declined to levels that would promote global cooling.

    This article is full of it, and they don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.

    Based on my work the following solar parameter averages will be needed to promote global cooling going forward . They are listed just below.

    solar flux sub 90 or less

    cosmic ray counts 6500 per minute or higher

    solar wind speed 350 km/sec or less

    ap index sub 5.0 for 99% of time ,spikes the other 1% of the time

    euv Light intensity 100 units or less

    solar irradiance off by at least .015%

    When values are above the solar parameters I have listed above solar activity is at best going to be neutral as far as the climate is concerned. In addition if one looks at the average solar parameters I have listed in the above from the period 1980-2005 one will find solar activity well above that criteria that I listed that would promote global cooling..

    Going forward for the balance of this decade chances are solar activity will fall back into the criteria I have listed which it has been doing post 2005 until the maximum of solar cycle 24 came around early 2011. This maximum although weak has pushed solar activity much above the criteria needed to promote global cooling, but this should end as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to a close in the near future..

    This article is so full of it in that they try to suggest the present solar activity can’t go much lower, they should look at the Dalton Solar Minimum and Maunder Solar Minimum, when solar conditions were much lower then at present and sustained at very low levels for years. I would say as low as the criteria I have mentioned or lower in the case of the Maunder Minimum.

    I still believe we are in a prolonged solar minimum period similar to at least Dalton Solar Minimum going forward from here and if correct global cooling will be the trend in temperatures not global warming

  • Salvatore Del Prete

    Subject: the true solar climate connection

    First of all solar activity from 1980-2005 was above average not average or below as this article tries to convey. If anything from the period 1980-2005 solar activity would have aided in a rise in the global temperatures. It was NOT until post 2005 that solar activity declined to levels that would promote global cooling.

    This article is full of it, and they don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.

    Based on my work the following solar parameter averages will be needed to promote global cooling going forward . They are listed just below.

    solar flux sub 90 or less

    cosmic ray counts 6500 per minute or higher

    solar wind speed 350 km/sec or less

    ap index sub 5.0 for 99% of time ,spikes the other 1% of the time

    euv Light intensity 100 units or less

    solar irradiance off by at least .015%

    When values are above the solar parameters I have listed above solar activity is at best going to be neutral as far as the climate is concerned. In addition if one looks at the average solar parameters I have listed in the above from the period 1980-2005 one will find solar activity well above that criteria that I listed that would promote global cooling..

    Going forward for the balance of this decade chances are solar activity will fall back into the criteria I have listed which it has been doing post 2005 until the maximum of solar cycle 24 came around early 2011. This maximum although weak has pushed solar activity much above the criteria needed to promote global cooling, but this should end as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to a close in the near future..

    This article is so full of it in that they try to suggest the present solar activity can’t go much lower, they should look at the Dalton Solar Minimum and Maunder Solar Minimum, when solar conditions were much lower then at present and sustained at very low levels for years. I would say as low as the criteria I have mentioned or lower in the case of the Maunder Minimum.

    I still believe we are in a prolonged solar minimum period similar to at least Dalton Solar Minimum going forward from here and if correct global cooling will be the trend in temperatures not global warming

    • brantc

      You forgot about more heat leaving the poles. Record cold at the poles…

      The earth is a heat pump…. Heat in at the equator and out at the poles…

    • keyle8808

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! This whole website is full of people who have NO IDEA what they’re talking about. Then again, I’d say anything, too, if the oils paid me as much money as these people are getting.

      • ssec1968

        Um, in case you haven’t noticed, having ten different explanations for the pause in global warming means you nitwits don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Thurman Zhou

        First, I know for a fact big oil isn’t sending me a big fat check. And Second, I’d go a lot further than Salvatore did. The long term, near term and short term solar cycles coincided with cycle 23. Of course I would have gone out +/- 2 or 3 solar cycles, natural variability.
        What bothers me is that some smart people just wrote solar activity off as if it didn’t happen. AGW can’t explain the MWP or the LIA. If you don’t believe me look at the graph produced by the IPCC that shows the relationship between co2 and temps. There are a couple of established facts now that weren’t a few years ago showing that the MWP was warmer and world wide, and the LIA was also world wide and cold. That argument was written off as a local event, you know .. weather. First the graph doesn’t show the extent of the warming or the cooling, and second it doesn’t show any rise or decrease in co2. So that begs the question, if they are wrong about the level of co2, what caused the levels to increase or decrease? Since they are wrong about the temps during theses time periods, what were the causes? In context, seriously, if you can’t explain the recent past, you can’t explain what’s going on now. Regardless of what you might believe or want to believe, the co2 regime, there is a problem with it as it is presented.

    • Peter Moss

      And then there is the sunspot theory. This is based on sunspots, not solar output. There appears to be some validity to it especially after the experiment at CERN. But, it is going to take more research to prove the hypothesis.

  • Ray

    Why can’t they just tell the truth? They want one world government where they are the “more equal” and we are all poorer than church mice. It’s more the “watermelon theory” that applies and it is all about politics.

  • Hoss 1981

    Fact : More sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide has been spewed by volcano eruptions than the emission given off by vehicles since the model A Ford.

  • http://wwwacadia1755.blogspot.com/ wilbert Robichaud

    Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor…. Hummm what happen to “CO2 is the main climate driver” ?

  • BillDeKatt

    8.
    My Dog Ate Your Global Warming.

  • brunnegd

    What standstill? http://www.livescience.com/42733-2013-4th-hottest-year-on-record.html
    Climate Depot: Your head is buried so far in the sand .you are getting a sunburn from the Australian heat wave

    • ssec1968

      Hahaha!! Way to point out one more study that disagrees with all the other global warming nonsense! The only thing you showed was that you warmists have no idea what’s going on.

    • Peter Moss

      I fail to see your point. The fact that last year was one of the 4th hottest on record is in no way inconsistent with the fact that there has been no statistically significant trend in global average temperature for the last 17 years. The 4th hottest means that there were 3 previous years that were hotter this does not indicate that the temperature is going up in the short run.

      • R Micheal

        Actually the 17 warmest years globally have all been in the last 18 years. That doesm’t sound like no warming to me.

        There have been a few public statements made about no warming. The statement about flat had to do with the mean temperature not the actual temperature, The flat reference was because a few very warm years averaged into 134 years makes only a slight increase in the mean temp

        Another statement was that there had been a pause. The pause was in surface temp only, not a pause in GW

        Another was that there had been no GW for 15 years. This was a lie started by David Rose in an article Jan 29, 2012 in the DailyMail. He took MET data, took what he wanted to suit his needs and lied. The MET called him on it in their own blog.

        You are obviously a denier doesn’t know jack about AGW

        • JRT256

          Actually the 17 warmest years globally have all been in the last 18 years. That doesm’t sound like no warming to me.

          What does that have to do with the trend. There has been no statistically significant trend in the last 17 years.

          The “mean” temperature refers to the average for the whole globe for the period of time (e.g. month or year). It is hard to see what you think it means.

          I believe that Global Warming is based on surface temperature data.

          The statements were about the global average (mean) surface temperature. You can look at the figures yourself here:

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

          The data does not lie. You appear to be ignoring the data. That would appear to be denial.

          There is an interesting paper published in Science that attempts to explain why Global Warming has stopped, at least for now. You might want to read it. Or perhaps you thing that these scientists are deniers that don’t know jack too.

          http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

          The fact is that, for some reason, Global Warming has stopped. Even James Hansen has stated that this is true and has tried to figure out why. It may only be a pause or it might be a limiting condition. We have no way of knowing.

          • R Micheal

            AGW is determined by both the surface temp and ocean temps, not just surface. I am not ignoring the data, you are ignoring the facts.

          • Peter Moss

            The video is totally outdated. Time has shown that what it said was wrong. Look at the chart above which doesn’t start with 1998 and is for 18 years. If what the video said was true, the chart would show temperatures above 1998 on the met office chart by now and a warming trend after 1998. This has not happened.

            http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/monckton1-300×168.png

            Now, what do you think that Ocean temps are? Yes, the warming of the Oceans lags behind the surface temperature of the Ocean, but that is nothing new. It was happening when the surface temperature of the Ocean was increasing.

            Actually, what the first video is showing is denial by Global Warming advocates. They are denying the science and fighting the data.

        • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

          “Actually the 17 warmest years globally have all been in the last 18 years. That doesm’t sound like no warming to me.”

          So you’re saying that the Sun is responsible for glowball warming, then, as solar radiation has increased starting in 1997… that is, 17 years ago?

          • R Micheal

            Nope the Sun is not responsible for more than a minimal amount of warming, maybe .5-1% maximum You are seriously misinterpreting what I said. The temperature follows the increase in CO2 get with it

          • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

            You’ve got it backwards. CO2 changes lag temperature changes. It’s a following, not leading, indicator. Geez, try not to comment unless you do your research first, ok?

          • R Micheal

            Wrong! That’s a crock

          • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

            Don’t throw some idiot’s YouTube garbage at me as though it means anything; go LOOK UP THE RAW DATA FOR YOURSELF. CO2 changes follow temperature changes, whether you want to admit it or not.,

        • Thurman Zhou

          Actually I do know something or jack… the temps are supposed to be going up. That’s the problem. Not just warm and level off. UP!! We’ve spewed out tons more co2, the temps are suppose to be way up, not leveling off. or declining even slightly.

    • Thurman Zhou

      Is your ship still stuck? It summer there you know.

  • R Micheal

    There has been no pause in global warming, only a pause in surface temps, The combined surface and ocean temps are still rising. How can you say pause with a straight face when 2013 was tied for the fourth warmest year globally out of 134 years.You deniers are so full of crap even night time Huggies wont keep it in!!!!!!

    • Peter Moss

      The combined surface and ocean temps are still rising

      No, they aren’t! Check the figures for yourself. The graph is for global average; not just land.

      2013 was tied for the fourth warmest year globally out of 134 years

      What part of flat don’t you understand. It was the 4th warmest year. That means that there are 3 previous years that were warmer. This does not indicate that the graph is going up. Are you innumerant? You parrot something and you think that it proves a point when it is just a meaningless talking point. It isn’t getting any cooler, but the warming has stopped. No significant change for 17 years.

  • Peter Moss

    There has to be saturation is a system with positive feedback (otherwise it will simply run away). Something that the Warmers models completely ignore. It appears to me that #7 is probably correct. The authors appear to have found the saturation mechanism and it is possible that the global average temperature will not continue to increase any further, or if it does it will be at a much reduced rate, as Carbon Dioxide concentrations increase.

  • Shrub

    Thanks! Appreciate incorporating #9 into a single post containing 1 through 8. Very useful.

  • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

    This just keeps getting better and better…

  • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

    (Please let excuse #10 be something involving Godzilla.)