New Study: No "hiatus" in AGW

[ORH_wxman]

 " the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. 

 

I think that is the cause for pause . Again I am not claiming the new data set is wrong, but we keep increasing the slope that ends up mirroring the warming concerns and never seen to find sampling errors that flatten the curve . 

 

 

Well the warming of the early period did flatten the warming curve over the instrumental period...it just increased it in the near-term. But they essentially lopped off like 0.10-0.15C of total warming. That is pretty big. You just have to look past the obsession of the hiatus period.

 

 

Look, I'm not saying what they did is correct...in fact, there is plenty of evidence to be skeptical of their corrections. The most obvious being that the hadSST team looked at this exact issue and decided not to make a broad-brush "buoy correction" due to the extreme regional variability of the discrepancies. I still haven't read the paper in depth, so I can't really comment further until I do....but I'm sure they will get plenty of scrutiny from other data sources in the coming months...including the Hadley guys.

[FloridaJohn]

I guess I'll just post this again. Look at the bottom graph. That is comparing no corrections to the latest corrections. See what they did there? They made the past warmer. How does that fit any conspiracy theory that they are trying to make global warming more dramatic? Even if you look at the changes made to more recent years, those are extremely tiny changes to the overall record.

 

 

But even after all these changes, the amount of change is really, really, small and does not have a major impact on the basic theories of global warming being caused by human civilization pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

[stadiumwave]

I disagree with the 1st paragraph, and agree with the second one. If ENSO were to blame for 2014, it'd be reflected in the satellite data, as the dynamic changes in the equatorial thermal profile that result from ENSO are felt strongest in the middle troposphere.

The surface warmth is most likely due to decreasing global wind speeds reducing the evaporative process at the sea surface.

 

Very interesting...your 2nd paragraph especially.  Never really have thought about that.

[stadiumwave]

I guess I'll just post this again. Look at the bottom graph. That is comparing no corrections to the latest corrections. See what they did there? They made the past warmer. How does that fit any conspiracy theory that they are trying to make global warming more dramatic? Even if you look at the changes made to more recent years, those are extremely tiny changes to the overall record.

 

 

But even after all these changes, the amount of change is really, really, small and does not have a major impact on the basic theories of global warming being caused by human civilization pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

 

Gavin Schmidt said the same in an interview.  Like I posted earlier, the hiatus doesn't bring into question "the basic theories of global warming being caused by human civilization pumping CO2 into the atmosphere" but it does raise questions about climate sensitivity & future projections.

 

Either way, the main issue is that the hiatus has been a PR nightmare & it appears to me (I'll try to hold my judgment based on what Don says) that this study conveniently eliminated it.

[ORH_wxman]

Gavin Schmidt said the same in an interview.  Like I posted earlier, the hiatus doesn't bring into question "the basic theories of global warming being caused by human civilization pumping CO2 into the atmosphere" but it does raise questions about climate sensitivity & future projections.

 

Either way, the main issue is that the hiatus has been a PR nightmare & it appears to me (I'll try to hold my judgment based on what Don says) that this study conveniently eliminated it.

 

 

Well again, the ironic part about the corrections is that they would lower empirical-based sensitivity estimates because the total warming in the instrumental period is less on the newer data. The increase of 0.06C per decade to 0.11C per decade in the recent period is more than compensated for by significantly warming the past. There will be plenty of people who question these revisions from both angles....the hiatus and the early period warming.

 

The responses I look forward to the most are from the Hadley team, who have done some of the best work on SST data we have. They have long been considered the best source for SST data, so their scrutinization of the paper would hold some weight.

[FloridaJohn]

it appears to me (I'll try to hold my judgment based on what Don says) that this study conveniently eliminated it.

 

What is the difference between convienience and rigorous scientific process? How do you distinguish between the two?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Gavin Schmidt said the same in an interview. Like I posted earlier, the hiatus doesn't bring into question "the basic theories of global warming being caused by human civilization pumping CO2 into the atmosphere" but it does raise questions about climate sensitivity & future projections.

Either way, the main issue is that the hiatus has been a PR nightmare & it appears to me (I'll try to hold my judgment based on what Don says) that this study conveniently eliminated it.

Does it matter whether or not ESC is 2.5C/per doubling or 4.5C/per doubling? Both outcomes suck for humanity and the rest of the planet.

If I had any say in the matter, I'd focus more research dollars on the forcings behind the ever-changing nature of the TCR and the nature of the abrupt climate changes observed in the paleo-record. What we need to worry about (down the road) are abrupt swings in climate, initially due to CO^2 forcing, and later on, due to orbital harmonics favoring an ice age. These studies assuming a stable ESC/TCR are all flying in the face of the paleo-climate record. External and internal factors will change both the ESC and TCR, so why bother with all these linear projections?

[ORH_wxman]

Does it matter whether or not ESC is 2.5C/per doubling or 4.5C/per doubling? Both outcomes suck for humanity and the rest of the planet.

If I had any say in the matter, I'd focus more research dollars on the forcings behind the ever changing nature of the TCR and the nature of the abrupt climate changes observed in the paleo-record. What we need to worry about (down the road) are abrupt, periodic swings in climate, initially due to CO^2 forcing, and later on, due to orbital harmonics favoring an ice age..

 

 

It probably matters a lot...unless the realization of ECS is so slow as to be on the scale of 500-1000 years.

 

I agree that TCR is far more important for the politics of climate change. They are calculated very similarly though...only TCR is basically ignoring OHC in the calculation (TCR isn't calculating whether a bunch of stored ocean heat will come back to haunt us generations later). This study's conclusions don't really change anything on that front.

[StudentOfClimatology]

It probably matters a lot...unless the realization of ECS is so slow as to be on the scale of 500-1000 years.

I agree that TCR is far more important for the politics of climate change. They are calculated very similarly though...only TCR is basically ignoring OHC in the calculation (TCR isn't calculating whether a bunch of stored ocean heat will come back to haunt us generations later). This study's conclusions don't really change anything on that front.

That's what confuses me..I don't understand how one can calculate TCR without accounting for what could change the forcings and feedbacks driving ocean heat uptake? The oceans represent the entirety of the system's fuel tank. As ENSO proves, all it takes is a relatively minor change in global circulation to substantially alter net energy flow within the ocean/atmosphere boundary layer.

[ORH_wxman]

That's what confuses me..I don't understand how one can calculate TCR without accounting for what could change the forcings and feedbacks driving ocean heat uptake? The oceans represent the entirety of the system's fuel tank. As ENSO proves, all it takes is a relatively minor change in global circulation to substantially alter net energy flow within the ocean/atmosphere boundary layer.

 

 

When TCR is calculated based on a long period using an energy budget equation, any natural variability in the oceans such as decadal ENSO cycles should be accounted for already due to that relatively long period of record. The OHC that builds up during that time is longer term OHC. It is not forcing itself on the surface temperatures...the part of OHC that does become a warming factor in the shorter term is already seen in the period of observation as part of the increase of temperature.

 

Granted, perhaps there is some major tipping point where all of the sudden the ocean will spew decades worth of heat accumulation into the atmosphere and we see extreme surface temp rise that coincides with an extreme drop in OHC...but this calculation of TCR goes on the assumption that if we haven't seen signs that this will occur in the past century, then it's unlikely to occur in the next 70 years. There's always a slim chance that that assumption is wrong, but we haven't seen a good reason to believe otherwise.

 

This is not saying that rapid temperature changes can't or don't occur, we just don't know enough about them to assume it will happen in the coming decades. I'm all for a lot more research on the 8.2 ka event.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Thanks.

I guess I was more or less using ENSO as a short term analog to longer term processes in the paleo-record and observational data. For example, in the OHC data, it's easy to see that the uptake rate varies due to changes in circulation/wind/convective patterns that may or may not be related to anthropogenic forcing(s). However, our observational record is too short to capture the full spectrum of internal variations like these, and the paleo record also captures frequent systematic behaviors (both regional and global) that we have yet to observe, much of which would be threatening to our society. Some of these behaviors seem to have obvious stimuli, while others lack any explanation whatsoever. Furthermore, often times essentially identical stimuli are met with very different responses, some for explainable reasons, others for no apparent reason. The magnitude and rapidity of these swings is what is most worrisome.

So, I think the major flaw in a lot of the ESC/TCR papers today is that they're mostly projections derived using today's boundary conditions, which will almost certainly change substantially over the next century as we enter a forcing regime not seen in millions of years. So, seeing all this focus placed on the "hiatus", and/or the short instrumental record to statistically justify linear projections, to me, is incomprehensibly dumb and frankly outright dangerous.

[ORH_wxman]

Thanks. I agree that stored OHC isn't what is technically going to thermalize at the surface, rather it's what isn't transported to depth that will manifest.

I guess I was more or less using ENSO as a short term analog to longer term processes in the paleo-record and observational data. For example, in the OHC data, it's easy to see that the uptake rate varies due to changes in circulation/wind/convective patterns that may or may not be related to anthropogenic forcing(s). However, our observational record is too short to capture the full spectrum of internal variations like these, and the paleo record also captures a lot of systematic behavior we have yet to observe. Some of this behavior seems to have an obvious stimulus, while others lack any explanation whatsoever. Furthermore, often times similar stimuli are met with very different responses, some for explainable reasons, others for no apparent reason.

So, I think the major flaw in a lot of the ESC/TCR papers today is that they're mostly projections derived using today's boundary conditions, which will almost certainly change substantially over the next century. So, seeing all this focus placed on the "hiatus", and/or the short instrumental record to statistically justify a linear projection, to me, is incomprehensibly dumb and frankly outright dangerous.

 

 

It is true that our period of record is too short to capture any internal variability that occurs on the scale of centuries or longer (some believe ENSO has gone through periods of centuries in a predominate state). This is definitely a limitation because it creates difficulty in determining equilibirum for a prior base state.

[Jonger]

Let's be clear....we all know this is a moot point as to the danger of continuing to pump the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.  I think most of us agree we have to put the breaks on that.  But this is a huge issue as to climate sensitivity & the prediction of the rate of warming over the next century.

 

It just appears to me that NOAA's paper had a desirable result to find from the beginning. It reeks politics & I'm sure placates the current administration greatly.  The hiatus has been a PR nightmare & they just eliminated it in the minds of many.  My hunch is that this will backfire PR wise & create more distrust between science & the public.  That's very unfortunate because this isn't a time to widen that gap.

 

Dr. Curry makes an excellent point about this whole thing with NOAA...that's kind of telling of their intentions:

 

"It would have been more convincing if they first provided a detailed analysis of what they did to the ocean data and compared it with the HADSST data sets – in a journal that allowed a lengthy contribution. Instead, they went for a politically desirable headline first."

 

This can't be discounted. NOAA did the study to try and get rid of the hiatus.  Heck, perhaps their data is right, but perhaps the outcome was what they were looking for all along. This is the problem in many science fields now days, studies are funded to achieve a result. 

 

Can anyone find the last AGW related study that ended with any other conclusion than increasing the trend of global warming?

[StudentOfClimatology]

It is true that our period of record is too short to capture any internal variability that occurs on the scale of centuries or longer (some believe ENSO has gone through periods of centuries in a predominate state). This is definitely a limitation because it creates difficulty in determining equilibirum for a prior base state.

The Alley et al 2003 paper is a bit of an oldie, but from an educational standpoint, I consider it the most important paper ever published in climate science. While very comprehensive, it's also very easy to follow and visually appealing, allowing students, policy makers, and climate scientists alike to draw appropriate inferences from it. Most importantly, it's not fully paywalled.

If you have the time, I'd highly recommend giving it a read.

ftp://129.186.185.34/data/2005/stuff/Abrupt_climate_change.pdf

Large, abrupt, and widespread climate changes with major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the Earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious. Unpredictability exhibited near climate thresholds in simple models shows that some uncertainty will always be associated with projections. In light of these uncer- tainties, policy-makers should consider expanding research into abrupt climate change, improving monitoring systems, and taking actions designed to enhance the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems and economies.

[stadiumwave]

What is the difference between convienience and rigorous scientific process? How do you distinguish between the two?

Intention

[bluewave]

Let's be clear....we all know this is a moot point as to the danger of continuing to pump the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.  I think most of us agree we have to put the breaks on that.  But this is a huge issue as to climate sensitivity & the prediction of the rate of warming over the next century.

 

It just appears to me that NOAA's paper had a desirable result to find from the beginning. It reeks politics & I'm sure placates the current administration greatly.  The hiatus has been a PR nightmare & they just eliminated it in the minds of many.  My hunch is that this will backfire PR wise & create more distrust between science & the public.  That's very unfortunate because this isn't a time to widen that gap.

 

Dr. Curry makes an excellent point about this whole thing with NOAA...that's kind of telling of their intentions:

 

"It would have been more convincing if they first provided a detailed analysis of what they did to the ocean data and compared it with the HADSST data sets – in a journal that allowed a lengthy contribution. Instead, they went for a politically desirable headline first."

 

I think that this is just the scientific publishing business. Every new paper that comes out needs a catchy headline to

grab the spotlight to publicize the findings. Dr. Curry is no stranger to big headlines as she was in the limelight

when her stadium wave paper came out. If you can't generate enough buzz when your paper is released, it

probably won't get much attention. The scientific field is a very competitive business which people sometimes

forget.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

[ORH_wxman]

I think that this is just the scientific publishing business. Every new paper that comes out needs a catchy headline to

grab the spotlight to publicize the findings. Dr. Curry is no stranger to big headlines as she was in the limelight

when her stadium wave paper came out. If you can't generate enough buzz when your paper is released, it

probably won't get much attention. The scientific field is a very competitive business which people sometimes

forget.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

 

 

Yeah and some papers can have headlines that sound totally different depending on the angle you want to promote in the media story. You can promote it as more dire for global warming or less.

 

Imagine if the headline for this current paper had been "New Study finds earth has warmed 0.15C less than previously thought".

[FloridaJohn]

Intention

How do you distinguish between the two?

[bluewave]

Yeah and some papers can have headlines that sound totally different depending on the angle you want to promote in the media story. You can promote it as more dire for global warming or less.

 

Imagine if the headline for this current paper had been "New Study finds earth has warmed 0.15C less than previously thought".

 

It may just be that the hiatus is the current hot topic in climate change so the headline wanted to add a new scientific

POV to this issue. But I agree with you that the adjusted warming in the early 20th century is much more interesting to me.

Cowan and Way have already suggested through their research that the post 2000 warming may be slightly faster

than previously believed. 

[stadiumwave]

How do you distinguish between the two?

Without knowing motives we cannot. However, we can read between the tea leaves & at times get pretty close. "If" Hadley pisses all over this paper then I'll let you answer it.

I think it's also important to remember that even if some involved in the study are politically driven, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone involved is. Nor does it mean that the study would be of no value at all.

I think of the IPCC assessment reports. Everyone knows that the rough drafts of each section are usually the pure science. But then there is another board that proofs, edits, & reword or removes certain statements...politics plays a huge role in that process. We've heard the complaints of some scientist who have worked on certain sections & were offended by the final drafts. But I don't think any of us would say the report doesn't have value at all.

[stadiumwave]

I think that this is just the scientific publishing business. Every new paper that comes out needs a catchy headline to

grab the spotlight to publicize the findings. Dr. Curry is no stranger to big headlines as she was in the limelight

when her stadium wave paper came out. If you can't generate enough buzz when your paper is released, it

probably won't get much attention. The scientific field is a very competitive business which people sometimes

forget.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

I can't disagree with that.

[bluewave]

I can't disagree with that.

 

This is a pretty good professional discussion about the paper:

 

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-study-on-the-global-warming-hiatus/

 

 

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said:

“This is an interesting study which confirms that uncertainties in the global temperature record are one part of understanding the recent slowdown in warming. The slowdown hasn’t gone away, however – the results of this study still show the warming trend over the past 15 years has been slower than previous 15 year periods. While the Earth continues to accumulate energy as a result of increasing man-made greenhouse gas emissions these results also confirm that global temperatures have not increased smoothly. This means natural variability in the climate system or other external factors have still had an influence and it’s important we continue research to fully understand all the processes at work.

“Overall this study demonstrates the importance of further work in narrowing down uncertainties in global temperature datasets and in better understanding climate variability. These are areas the Met Office has been working on for a number of years. The numbers in this study are within the uncertainty ranges 

calculated in our own global temperature dataset and we’re in the midst of a long-term project to further improve our understanding and narrow the uncertainties. Understanding variability in the rate of global average surface warming is an ongoing and active research topic.”

[FloridaJohn]

Without knowing motives we cannot. However, we can read between the tea leaves & at times get pretty close.

Since there is no way to actually know someone's motives, that just sounds like a way to justify confirmation bias to me. If a papers results don't fit your worldview, then you just say the scientist's motives were bad, and you don't have to internalize the implications of that paper.

.I think of the IPCC assessment reports. Everyone knows that the rough drafts of each section are usually the pure science. But then there is another board that proofs, edits, & reword or removes certain statements...politics plays a huge role in that process. We've heard the complaints of some scientist who have worked on certain sections & were offended by the final drafts. But I don't think any of us would say the report doesn't have value at all.

That is not at all how the IPCC report is assembled. The scientific sections are completely written by scientists. The only section where anyone can be called a"politician" gets involved is in the "summary for policymakers" section. That's where some of the wrangling of wording comes into play, otherwise, it is all the words of scientists.

[blizzard1024]

This can't be discounted. NOAA did the study to try and get rid of the hiatus.  Heck, perhaps their data is right, but perhaps the outcome was what they were looking for all along. This is the problem in many science fields now days, studies are funded to achieve a result. 

 

Can anyone find the last AGW related study that ended with any other conclusion than increasing the trend of global warming?

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

[blizzard1024]

The Alley et al 2003 paper is a bit of an oldie, but from an educational standpoint, I consider it the most important paper ever published in climate science. While very comprehensive, it's also very easy to follow and visually appealing, allowing students, policy makers, and climate scientists alike to draw appropriate inferences from it. Most importantly, it's not fully paywalled.

If you have the time, I'd highly recommend giving it a read.

ftp://129.186.185.34/data/2005/stuff/Abrupt_climate_change.pdf

 

 

The ice core records show massive abrupt climate changes when there are large glaciers in the NH, during the warmer interglacial the climate is more stable. That is where we are right now. There is very little chance that a small component of the climate system (CO2) can cause abrupt climate change. Indeed if the computer models are correct and we see 2-4C of warming, it will occur over a long period of time...like hundreds of years. The oceans just store too much heat and stabilize the climate. This is just plain common sense.

[stadiumwave]

Since there is no way to actually know someone's motives, that just sounds like a way to justify confirmation bias to me. If a papers results don't fit your worldview, then you just say the scientist's motives were bad, and you don't have to internalize the implications of that paper.

That is not at all how the IPCC report is assembled. The scientific sections are completely written by scientists. The only section where anyone can be called a"politician" gets involved is in the "summary for policymakers" section. That's where some of the wrangling of wording comes into play, otherwise, it is all the words of scientists.

Maybe if you took the time to follow my post you'd know I'm not a denier in any shape form or fashion. I'm tired of both skeptics & non-skeptics alike trying to create their own reality.

So...you're accusing me of being skeptical of a paper that is in conflict of every credible temperature dataset?

Not only that there are climate scientist used by this administration that were denying the "hiatus" in their congressional testimomies long before this study ever occured. All the while the rest of the scientific community looked at the hiatus as a fact supported by multiple datasets. Those climate scientists didn't seem to worry to much about denying a fact would hurt their careers. And I'm supposed to have faith in the honesty of Climate science?

Now all of a sudden NOAA, a U.S. government agency...produces a study with questionable adjustments that conveniently eliminates the hiatus????

We have a President that is making statements about climate science that are flat out lies. Yet, I'm being ridiculous for thinking any convenient data fudging is beyond the realm of possibility?

I want faithfulness, honesty, & trustworthiness in climate science. When that's the case I'm fine with whatever the reality is. I don't have a worldview for climate that I want to happen. Good grief!! Nor do I have a political bone in my body about the issue. I'm not a fan of Republicans or democrats...or any other party for that matter.

The reality is there are some involved in climate science that do not have honest objectivity as a priority. However, there are many others that do I'm sure. It's just hard to know who to trust & who not to.

John Cook's paper you argued with me about is a fine example. If you know that John or if you are that John you know so.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The ice core records show massive abrupt climate changes when there are large glaciers in the NH, during the warmer interglacial the climate is more stable. That is where we are right now. There is very little chance that a small component of the climate system (CO2) can cause abrupt climate change. Indeed if the computer models are correct and we see 2-4C of warming, it will occur over a long period of time...like hundreds of years. The oceans just store too much heat and stabilize the climate. This is just plain common sense.

That's simply not true. Did you read the paper?

[stadiumwave]

This is a pretty good professional discussion about the paper:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-study-on-the-global-warming-hiatus/

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said:

“This is an interesting study which confirms that uncertainties in the global temperature record are one part of understanding the recent slowdown in warming. The slowdown hasn’t gone away, however – the results of this study still show the warming trend over the past 15 years has been slower than previous 15 year periods. While the Earth continues to accumulate energy as a result of increasing man-made greenhouse gas emissions these results also confirm that global temperatures have not increased smoothly. This means natural variability in the climate system or other external factors have still had an influence and it’s important we continue research to fully understand all the processes at work.

“Overall this study demonstrates the importance of further work in narrowing down uncertainties in global temperature datasets and in better understanding climate variability. These are areas the Met Office has been working on for a number of years. The numbers in this study are within the uncertainty ranges

calculated in our own global temperature dataset and we’re in the midst of a long-term project to further improve our understanding and narrow the uncertainties. Understanding variability in the rate of global average surface warming is an ongoing and active research topic.”

Good find

[stadiumwave]

That's simply not true. Did you read the paper?

Very interesting paper...thanks for posting.

[blizzard1024]

That's simply not true. Did you read the paper?

 

yeah it is. he talks about the freshening of the north atlantic and abrupt change. Just look at the ice core temp reconstructions and you will see stability in the holocene and a lot of rapid changes prior in the pleistecene. What mechanism exists for abrupt climate change in the current warmer climate? The sun is pretty stable. Ocean heat content is very slowly increasing but stable. The ice albedo feedback is small because there isn't much land ice anymore in the NH. The Antarctic is thermally isolated and fairly stable and is not melting enough to cause albedo changes...in fact sea ice is increasing down there and hence increasing the albedo if anything.  There is no solid proof of a positive water vapor/cloud feedback that would abruptly change the climate. He does talk about abrupt regional climate changes and yes we do see this but this is a part of our climate system. I read this paper years ago and now recently. He even states that the Holocene climate is more stable than the ice ages in the outlook section.