Warming slowdown? WHAT warming slowdown?
Warming slowdown? WHAT warming slowdown?
A result of discussions at:
Part one was mentioned at Angry Bear a few weeks ago.
Here is Azimuth…part 2
Warming slowdown? WHAT warming slowdown?
A result of discussions at:
Part one was mentioned at Angry Bear a few weeks ago.
Here is Azimuth…part 2
Dan, to answer your question re: What Warming? I think this is to what you are referring (from your own reference): “The recent IPCC AR5 WG1 Report( https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) sets out the context in its Box TS.3:
Hiatus periods of 10 to 15 years can arise as a manifestation of internal decadal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced trend….” and as represented in the major temperature datasets (including the HadCru set referenced in the report): http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/plot/uah/from:2004.75
Dan, here’s an article using much simpler logic and math explaining the importance of the CURRENT HIATUS. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ It also uses the HadCru4 dataset.
In it we find this IPCC AR5 graph: http://wpmedia.business.financialpost.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552 and this explanation
“In other words, it is difficult seeing models and observations ever agreeing again.”
Yes, the models do represent the over all climate science, the divergence/hiatus shows us that the science incorrect. many scientists believe that in just a few more years to 2015 for the satellite based datasets or 2017 for the land based data sets will see the CURRENT models discarded for newer versions with increased. emphasis on natural causes versus CO2 centrist causes for warming.
@CoRev, Had you read the blog posts at Azimuth, intended to be educational and a tutorial as well as technical, you would learn several things.
One is that the specificity of prediction you are seeking is not possible, and never was possible. Related: How do you know that the projected temperature from climate models and actual as shown in http://wpmedia.business.financialpost.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552 is statistically different or not? You can’t, not without considering variability. Worth reading the posts to understand that.
Another is that it is highly questionable whether mean Earth surface temperature is as useful a measure of validating models as you apparently imagine … It is just one descriptor for a very complicated system. Total thermal energy is another important one.
A third thing you might have learned is that typical uses of the HadCRUT4 dataset are sometimes suspect, because of the way in which that dataset is delivered. It also lacks coverage. There’s a summary of it compared to alternative datasets in the second post. There’s also this: http://hypergeometric.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/are-we-making-the-argument-harder-than-we-have-to/
and the addendum in this: http://hypergeometric.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/warming-slowdown-3/. In short, plotting temperature versus time may not be the best way to reveal the phenomenon.
Finally, sure, climate models are imperfect? All models are. They are models. But do the doubters of their results want to improve them? Of course not. See http://hypergeometric.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/true-motives-revealed-the-climate-models-are-bad-and-dont-work-but-lets-not-try-to-improve-them/.
I don’t expect you’ll change your attitude or behavior, CoRev. My purpose here is to call you out for what you are, someone who will try to throw sand into the machinery of public understanding, without learning anything or understanding anything substantial yourself.
Jan, you may be surprised , but I did read your articles. I commented on the first and you seem to have chosen to not respond. Just what did I say to make you think that I disagree with much of what you said in your 2nd article?
My response was to Dan’s title: “Warming slowdown? WHAT warming slowdown?” Even the title of your 2nd article: “Warming Slowdown?” admits it is slowing. Furthermore, I wonder how you can determine my attitude or behavior, when my response wasn’t even aimed at you, but Dan?
Now as to your response to me: “…specificity of prediction…is not possible” is exactly the point many skeptics make, but yet most alarmists take the models and the many, many predictions derived from them in the scientific papers as absolutes. Moreover, they then propose far reaching policy to solve those absolutes. Are you one who agrees with that?
Mean Earth surface temps was selected by the climate community as their metric of choice. Except now that it is no longer supporting the AGW theory it is being abandoned for those few remaining which support it. Even the selected alternatives are more often derived/calculated than the measured albeit noisy temperature records, OHC, Total Thermal Energy, Sea Ice (Extent, Area, or Volume), etc. Accordingly we go from from a poor level of precision in the measured temperature data to even less precision in derived metrics. No level of mathematical manipulation can add precision, but can only better define its range.
Using Cowtan and Way for comparison of the more established datasets is little more than interesting, but their approach and its results still is not widely accepted.
HadCru4/3/2 GISS, BEST, NCDC are all land-based temperature measurement data sets. All have similar coverage limitations, and are plagued by the poor quality of the data. Their total duration is also problematic since it equates to just over 5 climate cycle periods, and is actually too short of a period to make definitive judgements on change. Even that time frame represents only the last major climate cycle recovering from the LIA to the current warmer climate.
If we can not rely on the land based data sets because of their length, we can do even less with the satellite sets. Although they have better spacial coverage, they cover only one climate cycle period. That’s too short for anything other than contemporary conditions comparison with the other datasets.
Finally, we are left with the proxy data to derive climate conditions for those extended periods outside the era of measurements. These are another set of derived values, and have the same “specificity” issues. Can we actually measure the correlation of a proxy to the actual climate condition(s)?
So my purpose in responding to your arrogant is to call attention to your attempt to stifle debate. If your argumentation runs true to form I will see ad homs and name calling as attempts to stifle alternaive view points. In the end, my point was to Dan’s understanding of the hiatus which is not validated by the data, AR5, and even your article.
While we are discussing climate, and Dan disbelieves in the hiatus, do you support his position? Do you dispute this article? http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
From the Nature article:
“Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.”
In a nutshell, this article says that the “hiatus” is an artifact of incomplete accounting for global thermal energy increases. Increased temperatures in the ocean could well account for the “hiatus” illusion,
Joel, looking for why there is a hiatus is what science is about, but calling it an “illusion” is denial of the data. The article, http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ provides a good summary of why the hiatus is important to climatology. What it clearly shows is how incomplete and inaccurate is our understanding of the science. That science is represented in the GCMs and they have failed to project this hiatus, its length, and the reasons it exists.
BTW, many skeptical scientists did expect it and are predicting its length.
Even today as your Science reference shows the impact(s) of the oceans are still not fully understood.
“calling it an “illusion” is denial of the data.”
Nope. No more so than calling the apparent rising of the sun in the East an “illusion” is denial of the data. The data are becoming more and more complete, as as they do, the “hiatus” looks more and more like an illusion.
Nothing in science is “fully understood,” CoRev. But in this case, while the mechanisms by which the increasing energy due to anthropogenic global warming is stored and distributed are not “fully understood,” the evidence that anthropogenic global warming is happening is mounting and is compelling.
More on the so-called “hiatus” here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html#author-information
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140226165305.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change
JHoel, what are you trying to say? You responded to my: ““calling it an “illusion” is denial of the data.”” with a strawman argument that is not in question: ” the evidence that anthropogenic global warming is happening is mounting and is compelling.” It isn’t even an issue. Go read the temps off the road bed in front of your won house.
The argument has been for many years how much warming is from ACO2 and how much is from natural causes? The hiatus, which you called an illusion, shows us natural causes are important, but not HOW important.
n support of your “hiatus illusion” belief you provided this link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html#author-information
Which starts with: “Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global HIATUS that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature,…”
Your Science Daily reference is entitled: “Climate change: No warming hiatus for extreme hot temperatures” Notice that it is NOT talking about the same subject, Global Average Temps versus extreme hot temperatures.
Are you trying to change the subject? Your first reference clearly asserts the validity of the hiatus.
I did not even read you Guardian reference. There’s no scientific credibility with that rag.
“The hiatus, which you called an illusion, shows us natural causes are important, but not HOW important.”
No. The “hiatus” illusion shows us that surface temperature readings are not sufficient to capture how the earth is responding to anthropogenic warming. The recent realization that the ocean has been absorbing the energy that would otherwise erase the surface temperature “hiatus” tells us nothing about the “natural causes” of global warming. It gives as a more complete picture of global warming and tells us that there has been no “hiatus,” only the illusion of a hiatus caused by ignoring a major planetary heat sink.
The subject is global warming, CoRev. The “hiatus” in global warming is an illusion. Yes, there has been a “hiatus” in the surface temperature warming rate, but new data tell us that, with respect to planetary warming, this is an illusion, since surface temperatures ignore ocean warming. To continue to focus, as you have, on the surface temperature “hiatus” is sophistry. People sincerely interested in the latest in climate science embrace the totality of the data.
There are several misconceptions in your latest comment. I will just take on the most egregious: “since surface temperatures ignore ocean warming.” HadCru, GISS, NCDC all include Sea Surface Temps (SSTs). BEST is the only land-based surface temp dataset referenced in Jan’s article. Even you reference, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html#author-information, is all about sea temps and trade winds. I don’t know where you got that perception that surface temps do not include SSTs.
You also claim that this is new data, looking through the references the subject has been covered for well over the past decade.
I think this is a misstatement: ” The recent realization that the ocean has been absorbing the energy that would otherwise erase the surface temperature “hiatus” tells us nothing about the “natural causes” of global warming.”, but the oceans’ ability to absorb energy is neither a recent realization, nor a new concept to climate science – Global Warming. Indeed ENSO is clearly shown in the temp data. just look at the 97-98 Super El Nino years data. There is no known anthropogenic cause of ocean warming the exceeds that of solar radiation. Find one and be famous. Find an anthropogenic cause for el Ninos and be famous.
If you actually study the temp datasets you will find a clear oscillation correlated with the pacific Decadal Oscillation, and another with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations. They are not temporally synchronized, but it has been long theorized that major temp changes are driven by their cycles, and major warming/cooling changes occur when their warm/cool cycles are synchronized. Overlaying those ocean cycles with solar cycles and much of the interglacial climate cycles can be reasonably well defined.
We are fairly certain that orbital mechanics explain the glaciations, but we are not at all certain just what are the orbital conditions that initiate the glaciation.
The long term proxies, particularly the ice cores, show us that this current warming peak is lower than the previous and that was lower than its previous all the way back the Holocene Optimum soon after the start of the Holocene.
All of this is well established in the data. Because of the concentration on the AGW theory, and the current time frame, these data are largely ignored. The hiatus make that extremely difficult as they diverge further from observations.
All other metrics are derived/calculated, often from the temp measurements. If you ignore actual measurements for derived/calculated numbers, what do you use to validate them?
Because physics and because any scientist or person looking at a 15 year period is silly.
EM, do you have a point or are you just making another inept knee jerk comment? You might read this article http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-rage-we-absolutely-cannot-have-a-rational-conversation/ and see how much applies.
Physics is not inept.
Fake politeness while cherry picking insanity does not make a valid conversation.
You have posted mainly sheer and utter bs, yet somehow I am supposed to continue to talk with you because you are polite?
Fuck off.
Your understanding of climate physics is inept. My comment: June 21, 2014 6:32 pm has plenty of meat. Discuss using your in depth understanding. Beware of Google! It won’t demonstrate your in depth knowledge.
EM, I saw this today and immediately thought of you and your fellow travelers:
“Eighteen years of no global warming is cherry picking weather.
Climate is a warm week in Sochi, a heavy rain in Miami, or a hurricane in New Jersey.”