They’ve come up with yet another possibility that would explain why the Earth hasn’t been warming over the past couple decades, despite record increasing carbon emissions. Like other explanations, this one also involves oceans and their natural cooling and warming trends. Here’s the Daily Caller:
Mark Fischetti for Scientific American put this in layman’s terms:
“The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler, driven by large circulations of water across these and the rest of the world’s seas. Warmer and cooler periods can last several decades. The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study.”
But how long will this natural “pause” in the rate of warming thanks to Pacific cooling last?
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and co-author on the paper, told Quartz “the Pacific Ocean has been in a natural ‘cooling’ mode, which has slowed the warming of the globe, but we expect that to reverse in the near future.”
A complementary study published earlier this week in the journal Nature suggests there’s a 25 percent chance the “hiatus” will continue for the next five years.
“Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15 years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until the end of the decade,” the study abstract read. “Following the termination of a variability-driven hiatus, we also show that there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.”
“The lesson in all this is that even though the oceans run through natural cycles of warming and cooling, pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the entire system hotter over time,” Fischetti wrote for Scientific American. “In the past decade the oceans have saved us, to an extent, from rapid atmospheric warming, but when the current ocean effect reverses, our emissions will come back to haunt us.”
It’s the usual begging the question we get from climate alarmists. All their explanations would be interesting and relevant assuming their already decided conclusions about manmade global warming were true. They’re not looking at the evidence and finding out where it leads. They’re first assuming that carbon emissions cause higher global temperatures. That’s their first premise, for which they believe they need no evidence. Then they can take all the data that they’ve gathered and stuff it inside their predetermined belief system about manmade global warming.
So far, none of their dire predictions have come to fruition, no matter how dogmatic they were and how scientific they sounded. So, why should we trust them now when they say that someday, all those carbon emissions are going to cause huge temperature increases? I have no problem believing that the Earth may become warmer in the future. Or colder. Like the oceans that they described as having “natural” cooling and warming trends, the global climate also goes through “natural” cycles, regardless of which sector of the energy industry is currently favored among the American populace.
Their basic premise must be questioned. If carbon emissions are what is driving the global temperatures higher, then why has the Earth stopped warming over the past two decades, despite record increasing carbon emissions? Instead of doing the obvious and questioning that basic premise in the face of all the counter evidence, they hold on to it as if it were a self-evident fact and mock those who would dare question it.