A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic.If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.
Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.
The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.
A new gap filler
Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data.
It sounds obvious and simple, but it’s not. Firstly, the satellites cannot measure the near-surface temperatures but only those overhead at a certain altitude range in the troposphere. And secondly, there are a few question marks about the long-term stability of these measurements (temporal drift).
I’m not feeling it.
Cowtan and Way circumvent both problems by using an established geostatistical interpolation method called kriging – but they do not apply it to the temperature data itself (which would be similar to what GISS does), but to the difference between satellite and ground data. So they produce a hybrid temperature field. This consists of the surface data where they exist. But in the data gaps, it consists of satellite data that have been converted to near-surface temperatures, where the difference between the two is determined by a kriging interpolation from the edges. As this is redone for each new month, a possible drift of the satellite data is no longer an issue.
Prerequisite for success is, of course, that this difference is sufficiently smooth, i.e. has no strong small-scale structure. This can be tested on artificially generated data gaps, in places where one knows the actual surface temperature values but holds them back in the calculation. Cowtan and Way perform extensive validation tests, which demonstrate that their hybrid method provides significantly better results than a normal interpolation on the surface data as done by GISS.
The surprising result
Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).
But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.
The corrected data (bold lines) are shown in the graph compared to the uncorrected ones (thin lines). The temperatures of the last three years have become a little warmer, the year 1998 a little cooler.
The trend of 0.12 °C is at first surprising, because one would have perhaps expected that the trend after gap filling has a value close to the GISS data, i.e. 0.08 °C per decade. Cowtan and Way also investigated that difference. It is due to the fact that NASA has not yet implemented an improvement of sea surface temperature data which was introduced last year in the HadCRUT data (that was the transition from the HadSST2 the HadSST3 data – the details can be found e.g.here and here). The authors explain this in more detail in their extensive background material. Applying the correction of ocean temperatures to the NASA data, their trend becomes 0.10 °C per decade, very close to the new optimal reconstruction.
Conclusion
The authors write in their introduction:
While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.
This is all too true. A media analysis has shown that at least in the U.S., about half of all reports about the new IPCC report mention the issue of a “warming pause”, even though it plays a very minor role in the conclusions of the IPCC. Often the tenor was that the alleged “pause” raises some doubts about global warming and the warnings of the IPCC. We knew about the study of Cowtan & Way for a long time, and in the face of such media reporting it is sometimes not easy for researchers to keep such information to themselves. But I respect the attitude of the authors to only go public with their results once they’ve been published in the scientific literature. This is a good principle that I have followed with my own work as well.
The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual variability around the long-term global warming trend and no cause for excited over-interpretation.
In my recent video, world class scientists point out that the so called “pause” is an illusion under any interpretation.
Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming ‘pause’ over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively.
These results indicate that the slowed warming of average global surface temperature is not as significant as previously believed. Surface warming has slowed somewhat, in large part due to more overall global warming being transferred to the oceans over the past decade. However, these sorts of temporary surface warming slowdowns (and speed-ups) occur on a regular basis due to short-term natural influences.
The results of this study also have bearing on some recent research. For example, correcting for the recent cool bias indicates that global surface temperatures are not as far from the average of climate model projections as we previously thought, and certainly fall within the range of individual climate model temperature simulations. Recent studies that concluded the global climate is a bit less sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect than previously believed may also have somewhat underestimated the actual climate sensitivity.
This is of course just one study, as Dr. Cowtan is quick to note.
“No difficult scientific problem is ever solved in a single paper. I don’t expect our paper to be the last word on this, but I hope we have advanced the discussion.”
The perceived recent slowdown of global surface temperatures remains an interesting scientific question. It appears to be due to some combination of internal factors (more global warming going into the oceans), external factors (relatively low solar activity and high volcanic activity), and an underestimate of the actual global surface warming.
How much each factor is contributing is being investigated by extensive scientific research, but the Cowtan & Way paper suggests the latter explanation is a significant contributor. The temporary slowing of global surface warming appears to be smaller than we currently believe.
There’s another aspect to this, though, and it may be a bigger deal than might at first be apparent. It adds up to a pretty scary situation.
That’s because the “slowdown” or “hiatus” has also had a number of alternative explanations. Decreased solar activity. Increased volcanic activity. A prevalence of cool-phase El Nino oscillations. Increase in aerosol loading from rapid and dirty Chinese industrial expansion. Heat export to deeper ocean layers.
To be sure, we are somewhat at risk of post hoc reasoning here. If there had been no sign of a “hiatus”, it is likely that less effort would have gone into explaining it! But all of these explanations appear individually to be sound, and with the possible exception of the last, likely to be reversed at any time. What that would mean is that in reality the underlying rate of warming is still accelerating. Ouch.
As the local poster child for the denialists, I predicted that you’d say something like this. If you added more detail, you’d have said something like “The hybrid temperature record is a fraud blah blah blah”.
This confirms the measurements of the rapidly-growing ocean heat content. The denialists have nowhere to go but further away from reality.
Omnologus – Why an Earth are you so keen to say goodbye to the IPCC an organisation that was formed by the UNEP in 1988 to address a perceived global problem. ? The UN was formed in 1945 after the horrific slaying of over 40 million innocent civilians and over 20 million soldiers during WWII to provide a platform for dialogue between nations, lessen the chance of further world wars and promote co-operation in solving international economic, social, and humanitarian problems. Many/most/majority/consensus of mainstream climate scientists from various countries and ideologies are telling us that man’s GHG emissions need to be checked and failure to do so will lead to epic negative consequences. China are the world’s number one CO2 producers, USA, India and Russia all closely follow. Whatever possible alternative to the U.N body do you suggest ? NIPCC – Run by the Heartland Institute ? do you think that China, India and Russia would respect their agenda an listen to the Heartland institute (with Fred Singer senior fellow the man who wants us to smoke ourselves to death). Do you want to fragment differences between the world even more and act in anarchy ? Even if you don’t believe that man is responsible for the amazing climatic changes that you can see in the world today, are you going to gamble that you are right by sweeping the only hope for international action away ? do you have children ?
I admit I can be cryptic. The “bye bye IPCC” refers to the fact that if this new paper is correct, then the IPCC process is shown too cumbersome and easily put out of date a few weeks after being published with lot of fanfare.
This criticism has been made in the past by people from all side of the debate.
I would forego the obsession for a consensus statement and task the IPCC with ‘just’ reviewing the whole literature on the various topics, presenting each scientific possibility with pro and contrary arguments. This would put the ball back where it should be, with the policymakers having to take decisions instead of trying to find an excuse via the ‘consensus’.
I would also have the reports organized in a more modular fashion. It wouldn’t be too difficult to add information about new studies almost as they get published. A bit more the work of a librarian and much less the work of an amateur policy-prescriptive scientist-activist.
Loading...
I do believe many scientists also would like the latest science to find their way to policymakers faster. IPCC has long been a lowest common denominator assembly on what they can all agree upon, so as a starting point for policy makers its really a rather good document. The AR4 already contained a lot of good research and surely enough information about possible impact that there is no need for willy-nillying about the reduction of CO2. The AR5 just released (or parts of it so far) really just re-emphasize the need for action.
So I don’t think waiting for the science to be absolutely sure in whether measurements are 90% or 95% confident is really necessary anymore, if that is whats keeping world leaders from converting the information into policy. The main problem as I see it is that there is an active campaign in stalling these changes from both fossil fuel interests as well as a general problem in motivating the public.
Many people have no understanding about the risk management gap in this discussion. On one hand they are taking out insurance on their homes just in case it burns down even there is a very very small chance it would – and in the next they brush away a whole field of science telling us that their grandchildren most likely will have trouble getting food on their table. I doubt the majority of people have any idea what the stakes here are, or indeed what +2C, +3C, +4C and higher warming really means to our civilization and life on this planet.
Those that do understand this, means all the talk about “if its happening” and whether warming is +0.12C per decade or +0.11C per decade should really be put to rest now. We should be discussing both how we can transition away from fossil fuels as well as climate change mitigation since we are already committed to a fair amount of warming even if we shut down industrial civilization today. Very likely the recent coal boom aerosols alone are holding back a substantial amount of warming in itself. Clearly the solutions are not very compatible with the classical ways of securing economic growth, so new paradigms will have to be invented. One of those is clearly shown in Germany these days, where it’s clear that a majority of people are motivated for the changes due to an acknowledgement of the science already here. If you can solve it with classical capitalism then by all means try it, although effective policy that has a global impact will require strong leadership with little intervention from special interest groups – but where clear goals in carbon emission cuts is first, no matter what the cost is.
Loading...
John – let’s stick to the IPCC. Am afraid the goal of having a consensus statement can only addmnths if not years to adding any new study to any report.
Furthermore there is the absurd idea of governments having a say on the wording of a science report. Once again, if the consensus were obvious from the contents rather than forced throughrgardless, the IPCC could be more scientific, more agile and more up-to-date.
Loading...
omnologos said:
“…if this new paper is correct, then the IPCC process is shown too cumbersome and easily put out of date a few weeks after being published with lot of fanfare.”
The IPCC process has a function distinct from the findings of individual papers: namely, to summarize the consensus view of scientists. The results of single papers need to be replicated and analyzed, their data and calculations checked by independent researchers, and their conclusions validated by the community of experts.
The IPCC report exists because global warming is a serious and complex public policy challenge. Political leaders are not scientists and should not be asked to evaluate papers like Cowtan and Way’s.
On the other side, AR5 is about a lot more than the surface temperature record.
I have always claimed that there is indeed a lot of cooling factors going on at the same time now that surely has significant impact on the actual warming of the atmosphere: Many La Ninã’s, less solar output, a doubling of coal use by China the past 10 years. Basically if everything was “normal” we should be experiencing serious cooling of the planet now. Seeing that quite the opposite is really happening, means the warming estimates of a doubling of CO2 has been very likely underestimated.
If we look at how fast the earth gets out of an ice age compared to the slow haul getting it down into one, surely the CO2 boost is of vital importance in addition to the reduced albedo. Considering that there really is only 100ppm CO2 difference between an ice age and none, could indicate that more of the +5C difference in global temperatures really comes from the CO2 component and less from the Milankovich forcing and reduced albedo.
But I dont think the IPCC estimates are that far off though. It might also be a substantial rise in CH4 that is contributing to faster local warming of the Arctic which makes the warming less flat in spite of the current cooling trends.
It might also be a substantial rise in CH4 that is contributing to faster local warming of the Arctic
One of the reasons I’m taking the U of Chicago on-line course on climate is to get a better handle on things like that. One of the things I learned from the energy budget model is that CH4 is a relatively small player, because its absorption bands lie in a part of the IR spectrum where there is much less flux compared to CO2 and H2O.
All that junk like SF6, CH4, CFC’s, etc., because they’re in relatively low concentrations, can cause relatively larger changes, because they’re easier double in concentration with respect to the work of man (if that made any sense). In other words, I think they say SF6 is so ‘much more’ powerful than CO2 with respect to the greenhouse effect, is because 1) there ain’t a lot of it present, and 2) because there isn’t a lot present, it’s easy to double through man’s activities; (and 3) because it gets stuck in the air for 3,000 some years).
The GHG’s have something similar to a f(x) = log x or f(x) = ln x (for positive numbers) type shape to them [where x is number of molecules and f(x) is the resulting temperature change or forcing or the like (I forget)]. So at low concentration (or low number of molecules), the slope of the tangent is greater than it is at the higher concentrations, or more to the point, a given delta x at the ‘left’ side of the curve affects temperature greater than that same delta x for the ‘right’ side of the curve.
But yeah, at some point in the CO2 concentration rise, you start to get that band saturation effect, right there near the peak of the earth’s IR spectrum and it starts grabbing more and more of the worst part of the spec…
This paper says nothing of the sort. It specifically says that the infill data indicates a warming trend GREATER than previously thought. This clearly indicates that warming is more widespread than just at the poles.
IOW the warming trend is SMALLER (close to nil) on the rest of the planet than at the North Pole. IOW the warming is (for the period considered by the paper) NOT global.
IOW the warming is (for the period considered by the paper) NOT global.
This ignoring the mechanisms that are making the Arctic warm faster.
Such warming implies a build up of energy in the Earth’s systems, especially the oceans, the increased energy is then transported to the higher latitudes.
If you are playing the pedant over the strict meanings of warming and energy increase then consider the following.
What is warmth? It is one way in which energy manifests itself
If you look at 1998 to 2012 I would say the warming is still significant even if you exclude the Arctic. The only reason why the short term trend isn’t steeper upwards is the 1998 strong La Ninã which has been pointed out so many times now that its getting extremely silly to repeat anymore now.
I wish people would respond to me and not to cartoonish types. My blog says the world is warming, and it says so since 2007.
Loading...
… says the clown who started this thread with this cartoonish comment:
“This paper says there’s no global warming, it’s only Arctic.”
Loading...
The message to take away is that the entire globe doesn’t warm up at once and if you have gaps in your observation, you’ll get some trends wrong.
Recall that one of the longstanding predictions of AGW is that the Arctic would warm faster that the rest of the planet.
And we were seeing dramatic reductions in Arctic extent and volume and significant increase in the melting of Greenland during a period of “global cooling”.
Some of that was probably the result of reduced albedo from wildfires, coal combustion and other dark impurities. But that means that less sunlight would be reflected and more heat would be stored in melted ice which would then flow into…..wait for it….. THE OCEAN
This paper says there’s no global warming, it’s only Arctic.
Writes he finessing away consideration of many other studies that inform on why the Arctic amplification is so important to fully global climate change.
Orwellian think speak. Part of it increased the other part remained the same, so the whole didn’t change. See what I mean about math? Stick to rhetoric, math is not your forte.
Oh – I use the ‘up vote’ to acknowledge a significant set of replies I get on here – a behavior developed from Facebook use. Unlike Facebook, one can’t tell from whom an ‘up vote’ is coming from, but I would imagine the short time period between a ‘reply’ comment and an up vote would be a credible signal of such acknowledgement from the original poster.
My ‘reply’ to several of your replies to my stuff was in the form of a simple ‘up vote’. Sorry if it seemed as though I were ignoring.
————————————————————————————————-
My dirty secret on this blog is that i ‘up vote’ a lot of omnologos comments. I don’t think he’s so much a ‘climate denier’ as he is a ‘rhetoric denier’; though perhaps ‘denier’ isn’t the best word: lots of information gets lost in trying to sum up a viewpoint into a one-word label, as he’ll point out from time to time. Sometimes he’ll say things that have a low probability of being scientifically fair, but are more fair in the sense of what ‘general public’ readers of science communication journalists are left to believe from such communication. Sometimes I just ‘up vote’ him for the entertainment value. And sometimes, after a long day’s work, it’s just nice to log on and see the same folks posting, regardless of their positions.
The down votes have stopped carrying information long ago, by their sheer number and absurdity. Say, if I lament the problem of post-hoc reasoning a small riot gets started, but it’s Tobis, well, nobody notices.
Hence a lot of the negative feedback is just mindless posturing. As for the up votes, if I were interested I would not be posting here 😉 😉 -but by all means, keep voting if that’s what makes you tick.
“This paper says there’s no global warming, it’s only Arctic.”
This is inaccurate in two ways: this is a paper about surface temperature, not global warming as a whole; and it actually does not find no rise in surface temperatures elsewhere.
Wrong? Did you read anything in the post? It hints to the possibility that all of them were right, but in spite of this the warming is still very significant. And if you then also add GISS temps to the mix you see that the warming is in fact continuing up even though with all the “explanations of a pause” the planet should be severely cooling.
Do you have a special filter in your brain that twists the words into something completely different than what they actually say?
John – you have misunderstood Tobis’ point. Besides, the idea that all explanations were correct seems particularly daft. There is only so much heat to pass around.
OTOH on the basis of this paper we can say that all the people who, on the basis of the previous and limited data, said there was a pause, they were right, in the sense of being right within the limits of the previous data. IOW all the people who tried to say there was no pause, they were wrong, again within the limits of the previous data.
“IOW all the people who tried to say there was no pause, they were wrong, again within the limits of the previous data.”
You are again assuming there is no actual global warming happening, even if the data the “pause” was based on was incomplete. The majority of people who embrace the AGW theory believe there IS global warming and WILL BE global warming even if the thermometer outside their window does not show it. Its the denier-camp that has been so hung up on atmospheric temperatures, while most climatologists have said the same thing all the time, there is an energy imbalance because of increased CO2 levels that will trap heat. To quote Trenberth (watch Peter video above please): “Some goes into the atmosphere, some go into the oceans, some go into melting the ice…”
To make it simpler for you to understand. Knowing the physical properties are in place for global warming and that there is no change to this we know there will be continued warming, we just don’t know where the heat will go. That really is enough knowledge for anyone to act on the information.
John – please let’s not split hair on the meaning of ‘pause’. The paper says the trend was underestimated, and it’s now in line with IPCC predictions. This means that, using theprevious and more limited data, it was correct to say that the warming was not as fast as the IPCC had predicted. Considering the trends in past decades, and the inability to discern a statistically significant trend since I believe 1997, some would have called the smaller trend a ‘pause’.
Disclaimer: I have a feeling this new paper is rubbish.
Loading...
only so much heat to pass around
Thanks to the huge heat capacity of Earth’s oceans, there’s more than enough.
If the oceans are receiving only 2% less of the incoming or re-radiated heat that would mean a 50-100% increase in the amount of heat available to the ice caps, land or atmosphere.
I was responding to the suggestion that all the post-hoc reasonings were correct at the same time. They cannot be, because there is only so much heat to pass around.
for example, if this paper is true, there is literally no need to imagine heat in the deep of the ocean, because, as the authors point out, the warming trend goes back to IPCC-prediction levels.
Loading...
That’s a big assumption to make without doing the math.
An increase in ocean heat uptake has been measured but there were objections that it didn’t fully account for the “missing heat”.
You may well be right about “only so much heat to pass around” but unless you’ve done the analysis to show how much missing heat there was, how much would be required for the amount Arctic warming that was overlooked, etc, it’s just speculation.
And the reason to look for heat in the oceans wasn’t only because someone wanted to make Trenberth look good:
Morin,indeed,if the various hypotheses about where the missing heat content is ‘hiding’ turn out to be correct,and in the range that are suspected,then what will our world look like on the day that we have a 1998 style El Nino, a return of sun spots,a lull in volcanic activity,an ice free arctic,and much fewer particulates due to countries finally cleaning up their carbon burning ways?
We have indeed made a deal with the devil I think.
Loading...
“I can continue. All previous explanations of the ‘pause’ were wrong. Including the idea that it was hiding in the oceans.”
The idea? Increased heat has been MEASURED in the deeper ocean.
“I can continue. All previous explanations of the ‘pause’ were wrong. Including the idea that it was hiding in the oceans.”
On the contrary, this does not contradict the observable facts that we 1) have had predominantly La Nina conditions in recent years; 2) have been in an extended period of solar quiescence; and 3) can measure the vast amount of heat that has gone into the oceans, particularly since 2010 in the deep oceans below 700 meters.
Nor would it logically do so; the observation that the surface temperature had continued to rise does not mean that heat cannot also have gone into the oceans; etc.
Stephen – you may want to elaborate. As I see it: surface trends were not as steep as expected, so the idea was passed around that the slowdown/pause/flattening-up/whatever was due to the heat going to the depth of the oceans.
Now that the trends have been found to be exactly as steep as they were expected be, I do not see why we would still have to presume that trends are not as steep as expected because the heat is going to the depth of the oceans.
I am not questioning the heat content of the oceans. I am questioning the link between what goes down there, and what happens to surface temperatures.
“As I see it: surface trends were not as steep as expected, so the idea was passed around that the slowdown/pause/flattening-up/whatever was due to the heat going to the depth of the oceans.”
First a caution: the data that are being reanalyzed in this study are short-term. It certainly looks as though the methodology is a contribution to greater accuracy going forward, and it is certainly interesting that the study points to a short-term trend more in line with the long-term trend; but a continuation of the same trend would hardly have been “expected” in any case – climate is not weather, is senior, as it were, to weather, and so it is only through longer trends that we can evaluate it.
An uptake of heat by the oceans, including the deep oceans, has certainly been measured – that is more than just an “idea”. Since the record El Nino of 1998 we have had almost entirely neutral and La Nina ENSO conditions, and, as you may be aware, during La Nina more heat moves into the ocean, leaving surface temperatures cooler.
Beyond that, the sun has been unusually quiet, transferring less heat to the earth, in the last few years. We are fortunate for that, but it is also not likely to last.
omnologos said:
“Now that the trends have been found to be exactly as steep as they were expected be, I do not see why we would still have to presume that trends are not as steep as expected because the heat is going to the depth of the oceans.”
I’m a little bit surprised that you take this new study, evidently, at face value. Anyway, again, the short-term trend, ANY short-term trend, can hardly be “expected”.
But we know that our planetary system is adding heat at a furious rate; the heat has to go somewhere.
omnologos said:
“I am not questioning the heat content of the oceans. I am questioning the link between what goes down there, and what happens to surface temperatures.”
That’s an odd comment – heat can move between the oceans and the atmosphere, yes? So if the oceans are taking up more heat, there is less to heat the atmosphere, yes? (La Nina, in other words.) Ocean temperatures to some depth in the waters east of the Philippines apparently turbocharged the recent record cyclone as it approached landfall. Ocean heat is the main driver of the radical reduction of Arctic sea ice in summer.
I’m a little bit surprised that you take this new study, evidently, at face value.
As I wrote in a couple of other comments, my point is that this study, taken at face value, ends up being too much of a revolution in many aspects of the science of climate change. That’s what I am trying to illustrate.
OTOH I can sense some caution on its actual significance, and that’s how it should be.
Loading...
omnologos wrote:
“As I wrote in a couple of other comments, my point is that this study, taken at face value, ends up being too much of a revolution in many aspects of the science of climate change.”
I don’t see it, frankly. The short-term surface trend is .12 instead of .05 degrees Celsius per decade, if their methodology is correct. But the short-term surface trend is only a tiny part in both space and time of the domain of climate science:
1) the atmosphere has a heat capacity a couple of orders of magnitude below that of the oceans – besides which they are connected and interact; and
2) it is ultimately only by looking at long-term trends that we can isolate the signal from the noise.
The “pause” was always a mythical beast, requiring a start date that coincided with the record El Nino of ’97-’98; that was essentially a straw-man argument, requiring that climate scientists claim increased surface temperatures over any selected period – therefore, at bottom, that each year had to be warmer than the previous.
Certainly the technique that these authors use is a contribution and will be a valuable tool in the coming decades; perhaps the results point to a higher climate sensitivity, though they are hardly a test of it. But in any case, this new study is hardly a revolution.
Loading...
Stephen – your argument is hardly compatible with the fanfare by Rahmstorf and Nuccitelli. As I said, I am fine with that.
ps the pause/slowdown/missingheat can be actually traced back to 1997, not just the El-Nino of 1998. But let’s get into that here.
Loading...
omnologos said:
“…the pause/slowdown/missingheat can be actually traced back to 1997, not just the El-Nino of 1998.”
The record El Nino began in May of 1997 and ended in April of 1998.
But in any case it doesn’t matter whether you start in 1997 or 1998, it’s still an illegitimate cherrypick.
“Stephen – your argument is hardly compatible with the fanfare by Rahmstorf and Nuccitelli. As I said, I am fine with that.”
I’ve read Stefan’s article carefully. I found no incompatibility, and I am fine with that.
Loading...
But even you understand that you cant add an outlier in the start or end of a data series and expect to see a signal, even if you place it as the second value after the start or end.
As Stephen say, the whole pause is a “myth” based on cherry picking. The last decade is still the warmest ever recorded.
And as I have said so many times now, this paper really just strengthens the evidence by showing that in addition to the added heat in the oceans and melting of ice we also have significant atmospheric warming. It would have been nice if the cooling trends were alone responsible for the melting of the ice and an actual “pause” in atmospheric temperatures, but its really clear that the CO2 levels are so high now that even strong cooling natural variations (including man made ones from aerosols) still doesn’t help.
As many have pointed out now, we can begin to wonder how things will look over the next decade if we get a return of solar output and some La Ninã’s. Considering that its very likely that the Arctic is also practically ice free some time this next decade, the added solar absorption in the sea those summer months will make temperatures soar (both sea and atmospheric).
Loading...
A myth is not a myth only because everybody says it’s a myth. Read RC again, Without the new paper’s infilling, the pause is still a pause (or slowdown, or whatever you want to call it). It’s a pause in surface temps, that somebody says happening whilst the deep oceans are warming.
It is not a ‘myth’. Maybe an artefact, or something caused by current ignorance of all the details of the climate, or not enough time has passed, or or or. But not a ‘myth’ any more than the idea that the cooling world of the 1960’s was going to still cool further, even if eventually it would heat up (that’s all in Mitchell (1972)).
Loading...
It’s a myth because the data is skewed from a large El Ninõ at start, and its a myth because decadal variations can perfectly create periods of less atmospheric warming. Global warming has not had any “pause” whatsoever.
Loading...
IIRC current mainstream estimate is that there shouldn’t be pauses lasting more than 17 years, but there is no agreement on when to start counting the 17 years from. Whatever. I guess the pause will stop being a debating point when finally the temperatures will go noticeably above 1998/2005, for whatever reason.
Loading...
So you are expecting what _you_ call a “pause” i atmospheric temperatures to continue, and then fall? If so, what is your explanation for this? The continually added heat magically disappear in a black hole in the center of the earth?
If there is a “pause”, and then starts to rise. Then what?
If it starts to rise again considerably in the coming years. Then what?
Loading...
If I had to put money I’d say the pause will stop 😉 or in common English, temps will climb higher at some point in the not-remote future.
If they do, we will continue discussing why. If they don’t we will continue discussing why. Not much change there ;-D
Loading...
It’s interesting to experiment a bit with the Temperature Trend Calculator at skepticalscience.com:
If I choose e.g. HADCRUT 4 and choose 1998-2013 i get +0.042 per decade.
If I then add 2 more years and choose 1996-2013 i get +0.094 per decade.
This alone tells us that its impossible to say anything about trends on a 15-17 year scale as I can reproduce with one simple example where warming trend doubles in difference.
What I think we should be discussing is not when there will be a new temperature record, but rather how we can get CO2 emissions down and still retain a decent civilization. We perfectly know that the current and future rise in CO2 will increase the warming – so waiting for some years to see if there was anything behind a “pause” is unnecessary. Its classical stalling tactics, there is already significant enough evidence in the last 50 years of warming for us to get CO2 emissions down fast.
Loading...
Careful John. Things aren’t that simple. Ask Ben Santer.
As for reducing CO2 emissions I am all for a cost-benefit approach 😉 -as you might guess, that ain’t simple either. Unless one believes a catastrophe is a certainty in the future.
Loading...
Well, the main problem is that the CO2 already in the atmosphere is already enough for substantial warming, even if we cut all CO2 emissions today. Question really is if it is already enough to cross several tipping points where we get massive methane emissions and a runaway state similar to past history. This is really the wildcard that can seriously hamper anything we can do unless we manage to invent some super carbon sucking devices.
At the same time, its really impossible to scale down industrial civilization fast enough without serious economical interruptions – or even change of politics globally. And by that I mean, even if USA is able to turn on a dime, it doesn’t mean China will – so perhaps serious trade interruptions will have to be done like banning imports from polluting countries – as well as stopping industry from establishing i countries with high emissions. Knowing that this will affect a lot of US companies, I have no real expectation that this will happen anyway. Our own right government here in Norway seems to want to solve this by carbon trading which has no real effect. If only they had used that money to establish some renewable energy company in a place with a lot of sun or wind (our own for the latter). Doesn’t exactly help that we got a climate denier as our agriculture minister and Norway is increasingly dependent on imported food.
Loading...
the main problem is that the CO2 already in the atmosphere is already enough for substantial warming, even if we cut all CO2 emissions today.
This is too true. I believe that we’re going to have to move to carbon-negative energy systems, where most energy comes from non-fossil sources and carbon from sources which produce CO2 in substantially pure form (cheap and low-energy to capture) is sequestered. For instance, bio-charcoal used in direct-carbon fuel cells produces nearly pure CO2. Sequestering that CO2 takes carbon from the atmosphere, generates energy, and puts the carbon away.
its really impossible to scale down industrial civilization fast enough without serious economical interruptions
And the interruptions themselves will not only stop any investment in RE, they will drive people back to the easiest-to-get fuels no matter how dirty and destructive they are. They’ll cut down forests, they’ll dig coal by hand… just to stay warm in the winter.
There’s an undercurrent apparent here which views energy qua energy as sinful. Not as something to be de-carbonized, but something that’s evil in itself. Maybe it scratches some deep moral itch to view others as sinners who must atone for their carbon and their parents’, unto the seventh generation… but the planet doesn’t give a damn how morally upright we feel, it cares how fast we get the carbon problem dealt with. The real success stories, like France (with per-capita emissions far lower than Denmark) show that engineering works better for this than sanctimony. Nuclear engineering, to be specific.
Loading...
Another issue: this paper implies that there were climate scientists, maybe even some at the September IPCC meeting, who knew a big explanation and a huge change in the estimated trend were in the paperwork and still kept all their colleagues and government delegates in the dark about them.
It is true that the IPCC has deadlines for considering paper but still, an exception would have been easily understood and surely appreciated by all. Basically WG1 is out of date after two months.
Science goes on. The IPCC reports have always been a synthesis of the state of scientific understanding at a point in time. It’s a snapshot.
All this paper says is that they’ve tried a new ‘improved’ method for filling in gaps in coverage for the thermometer record. It doesn’t radically change anything (unless you’ve irredeemably nailed your flag on the pause mast, but that was always going to be a silly thing to do). Neither will it be the last word.
In general I have found Omnologos’ posts to be quite beneficial; highlighting unclear parts of articles or unconsidered factors. The ensuing exchange often far expands the understanding that the original article provided.
In this case, not so much. Here he’s displaying less of a “devils’ advocate” role than a mental block.
No matter. He has a keen and intelligent mind and I’m sure he’ll contribute valuable input to future articles.
In a way these exchanges resemble a game of whack-a-mole only the mole always gets whacked in the end.
After all many of us have realised for years that there are important papers that miss the IPCC deadline. Submitted papers have to have passed peer review and then be studied by any of the IPCC contributing authors who’s field of interest happens to intersect with that of the paper’s subject matter.
We have also understood that the IPCC has erred on the side of minimising impacts – this because otherwise they would have frightened the horses (the vested interest corporate or political) into total non co-operation. The experience of Ben Santer with the Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 being a salutary example.
Lines have to be drawn somewhere.
Climate research is proceeding at a faster pace, and has also expanded greatly, since the IPCC was launched and it is for these reasons that a successor process to that of the IPCC is thought necessary, not because the IPCC was junk. It wasn’t.
I don’t think so. His posts are an exercise in obfuscation by a scientifically illiterate mind. They deliberately lead off topic to a rhetorical, semantic fantasyland dominated by personal opinion, hearsay, and frequent misuse and abuse of the phrase ad hominem. They are a distraction and irrelevant. Witness the frequent frustrated efforts to explain basic science, physics, and math which he has no grasp. Instead he retreats into layman’s pre physics 101 view of the universe with no comprehension of his ignorance, a la Monckton. He is living proof of Dunning Kreuger.
Now now …no matter what Peter says, commentaries about the person instead of the argument are the definition of being a troll.
Back to the topic guys, or admit you’ve got no arguments left. The paper btw contains a nice and humble disclaimer. So I’ll remove it from the rubbish category and move it to the “wild speculation” box.
If anybody believes the authors are onto something they’ll support a scientific campaign to verify the infills. That’s how science progresses.
I really don’t get what you find to be hard to grasp with the paper and indeed the supplied video explaining it. Its really very simple. You have thermometers that cover a certain area, and then you have satellites which cover the whole planet – they measure slightly different things. Now the question remains, for the places that don’t have any surface measurements, should we leave those out, or should we try to interpolate the data, or add a meaningful mapping of the satellite data that ADDS INFORMATION to the data with holes? Even a kid would grasp this, but still you write: “So I’ll remove it from the rubbish category and move it to the “wild speculation” box.” – Exactly what about this paper is wild speculation?
So you have warming, and this adds additional warming that we knew of anyway by looking at the GISS dataset. Which one is correct? Doesn’t really matter if you ask me, they both show warming. Knowing that there is also substantial warming going into the oceans they also aren’t needed to conclude that there is an energy imbalance. But I guess the moment deniers finally accept that there is global warming going on it has to be any other reason but CO2, right?
Ain’t that easy. Satellites don’t cover it all. Besides if these guys are right Hansen’s smoothing needs adjustment. Another revolution in climate science.
At the end of the day this paper subverts so much that was previously known, one would hope for robust evidence. Given their disclaimer the authors don’t much believe it either. Note how my criticisms are all assuming these guys are right. Other people are taking the paper apart already.
Loading...
No doubt, “the usual suspects” are “picking it apart” with the same vigor they are trying to pick apart a whole field within science by substituting real research with pixie dust and pulling science out of a hat.
I am sorry you have no credibility here and neither does Anthony Watts and his sub-puppet bloggers.
Loading...
Keep the focus, John. Of course there is no point on this blog to take this new study apart. That’s why all my criticisms are based on the assumption that the work is what it claims to be.
Yet another point: as I said this work if true and solid is big, very big. Nobody had challenged Hansen’s smoothing before, it tells the IPCC that their process is useless and their reports immediately out of date, it confirms a slowing down of warming everywhere apart from the North Pole, etc etc.
Now the question is…how many of the “big guns” of climate change have endorsed it? I am talking about the “star scientists” we often read about in these pages. Are they ready to accept the consequences of their endorsement? Rahmstorf seems to have, but then he’s not new to being too enthusiastic about new ideas. Anybody else?
Loading...
I can’t really see where the conclusions from IPCC were wrong, and where the method showed there was substantial warming going on. They even had a big graph there showing how little of the warming that actually goes into the atmosphere compared to e.g. melting of ice or warming of the oceans.
So if Hansens “smoothing” lacked information that could be computed using GISS data, it probably means this wasn’t necessary to confirm human impact on climate change. We still don’t know how accurate this new paper is, only that it strengthens IPCC’s case. I do believe the GISS data in its full has also been used to show the same thing many times over.
Where are you going with this? That the science isnt finished? Yes, we knew that, for each year that goes we get more accurate methods for showing how much the human CO2 emissions are to the planets biosphere. Although personally I think we have more than enough confidence to seriously act, as I really think my children deserves a livable planet. Although with the current course we seem to all be going the way of the dodo with imbeciles stalling any real change.
Loading...
John – Rahmstorf said that following this paper the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared”. I have made the point that this is the first time anybody goes against Hansen’s smoothing. Etc etc.
Now you make it sound like just any other paper. I am fine with that.
Loading...
I’d like to remind you who started the “pause” discussion in the first place.
This looks a lot like back in the 70s when there was a lot of hoopla about an ice age, a diversion tactic by the deniers based upon mis-interpretation of some science discussing the effect of aerosol cooling overtaking CO2 warming. Very few publishing scientists said that CO2 was less of a greenhouse gas that would have substantial warming effect, but still the media and the deniers went on and on and on, even today about the scientists predicting an ice age. Absolutely every discussion, being it youtube or some news article always have some clown popping up and saying that the scientists predicted an ice age in an attempt to discredit the science.
This is really just the same thing, only now the noise can be spread over so many more medias and reach people way faster, so its more effective. The idea is to make scientists look wobbly and uncertain in their field, which then should be interpreted as them not knowing a thing about what they are talking about.
And you omno, are just another denier-troll yapping about this in the same manner, even though the science will not be affected by this as we know there IS warming, and there WILL BE warming based on the knowledge that increased CO2 increases the planets ability to absorb energy. And knowing this the only way to control this is by lowering CO2 emissions.
So my question, why are you yapping about this at all?
Loading...
Am sorry John…I keep forgetting how puerile your arguments are. Now you’re imagining “deniers” travelling back in time to fight CO2 in the 1970s. And you still believe it’s sensible to interpret a discussion by labeling anyone with a differing opinion a “denier”.
Happy goose-stepping!
Loading...
But you are still evading the question. What is your point? Why are you even here?
Loading...
I promised long ago never to allow the discussion to move to myself as topic. Stop being a troll,focus on the topic proposed by Peter, study a little bit more.
Loading...
Did I mention the comments were all about the behavior, not the man? I forgot to mention the blinding egoism. Look at me, look at me! Everything is about him. Did you ever notice that every topic winds up being about His Greatness.
I find omnologos to be hilarious. It’s entertaining to watch emotion and logic work at two different speeds as he comes to terms with his worldview being turned upside down. BTW, to Glenn, I like the analogy where the “mole always gets whacked in the end.” Nicely done!
And you still believe it’s sensible to interpret a discussion by labeling anyone with a differing opinion a “denier”.
Happy goose-stepping!
Oh look! Equating denial specifically with jack-boots. Godwin rides again.
And you Omno’ have the gall to throw out accusations of providing puerile arguments.
Thanks for the ‘Black Knight’ farce here.
[1] BTW that latter is a statement of condition and not an ad hominem the meaning of which you need to go look up seeing the accusations that you have thrown out here of late.
It’s a farce of your own construction. John suggested there were global warming deniers in the 1970s, colluding with journalists. I cannot imagine anything more fanciful than that.
Global warming research have been attacked for a very long time, way before blogs and internet, surely you know that as well omno. The media picked up the story about the cooling effect from aerosols and made it into a new ice age story, one that got parroted and used as yet another attack that the scientists couldn’t agree within themselves.
Considering that the blogs and discussions are still parroting this today means the idea got stuck in peoples heads, and with it their respect for the scientific community. The “merchants of doubt” have been very effective into creating people with opinions like you omno, who easily swallow the anti-science propaganda from these people. Never truly critical, but generally just agree with an agenda that strengthens your comfort zone. There is a reason why Gore called his book/film “An inconvenient truth”. It truly IS inconvenient, and personally, like probably most scientists really, we really wished it wasn’t true.
I discuss with people with the same views on a daily basis and they have a view that generally goes against anything that can affect economic growth, even if its consequences in the future is an inhabitable planet. It’s almost like its “worth a gamble” just like the planet is some kind of lottery ticket or stock market. And generally they have no idea that anything they do or buy today has external costs to the planets biological life. Western society in general has really no respect for the slave labor going into producing a lot of the stuff we surround our self with too. If we can’t care for our own species, surely as heck we wont give a damn about pollinating bees dying from pesticides or stupid small plankton creatures we can’t see that provide our atmosphere with 50% of the atmosphere.
I challenge you omno, to step out of your bubble and open your eyes a bit, as your gut reactions of spewing gall every time someone touches your comfort zone bubble isn’t what you should be using your energy on here.
I am not sure I would accept invitation to step out of a bubble from somebody so completely unfamiliar with the climate change debate of the 1960s and 1970s. I think you’re mixing it up with the debate of the mid-1990s.
We are sliding OT here but it’d be nice to figure out where in those SkS page anybody claims that global warming deniers in the 1970s were colluding with journalists to scare people with ice ages.
Please list also who those ‘deniers’ were.
I am not talking about scientists who thought cooling was in the pipeworks. You mentioned ‘deniers’, you will find ‘deniers’ please 😉
As a hint, Kukla. Another hint, Mitchell. You are in for a suprise or two.
Loading...
Skeptical Science has an article about the authors of this paper trying to raise a modest amount of funds to make the paper open access:
There’s so much wrong with this. Bye bye IPCC mostly.
“But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.”
There’s so much wrong by your way of thinking. Bye bye omnologos.
As the local poster child for the denialists, I predicted that you’d say something like this. If you added more detail, you’d have said something like “The hybrid temperature record is a fraud blah blah blah”.
This confirms the measurements of the rapidly-growing ocean heat content. The denialists have nowhere to go but further away from reality.
Omnologus – Why an Earth are you so keen to say goodbye to the IPCC an organisation that was formed by the UNEP in 1988 to address a perceived global problem. ? The UN was formed in 1945 after the horrific slaying of over 40 million innocent civilians and over 20 million soldiers during WWII to provide a platform for dialogue between nations, lessen the chance of further world wars and promote co-operation in solving international economic, social, and humanitarian problems. Many/most/majority/consensus of mainstream climate scientists from various countries and ideologies are telling us that man’s GHG emissions need to be checked and failure to do so will lead to epic negative consequences. China are the world’s number one CO2 producers, USA, India and Russia all closely follow. Whatever possible alternative to the U.N body do you suggest ? NIPCC – Run by the Heartland Institute ? do you think that China, India and Russia would respect their agenda an listen to the Heartland institute (with Fred Singer senior fellow the man who wants us to smoke ourselves to death). Do you want to fragment differences between the world even more and act in anarchy ? Even if you don’t believe that man is responsible for the amazing climatic changes that you can see in the world today, are you going to gamble that you are right by sweeping the only hope for international action away ? do you have children ?
I admit I can be cryptic. The “bye bye IPCC” refers to the fact that if this new paper is correct, then the IPCC process is shown too cumbersome and easily put out of date a few weeks after being published with lot of fanfare.
This criticism has been made in the past by people from all side of the debate.
And your suggestion for improvement to the process is?
I would forego the obsession for a consensus statement and task the IPCC with ‘just’ reviewing the whole literature on the various topics, presenting each scientific possibility with pro and contrary arguments. This would put the ball back where it should be, with the policymakers having to take decisions instead of trying to find an excuse via the ‘consensus’.
I would also have the reports organized in a more modular fashion. It wouldn’t be too difficult to add information about new studies almost as they get published. A bit more the work of a librarian and much less the work of an amateur policy-prescriptive scientist-activist.
I do believe many scientists also would like the latest science to find their way to policymakers faster. IPCC has long been a lowest common denominator assembly on what they can all agree upon, so as a starting point for policy makers its really a rather good document. The AR4 already contained a lot of good research and surely enough information about possible impact that there is no need for willy-nillying about the reduction of CO2. The AR5 just released (or parts of it so far) really just re-emphasize the need for action.
So I don’t think waiting for the science to be absolutely sure in whether measurements are 90% or 95% confident is really necessary anymore, if that is whats keeping world leaders from converting the information into policy. The main problem as I see it is that there is an active campaign in stalling these changes from both fossil fuel interests as well as a general problem in motivating the public.
Many people have no understanding about the risk management gap in this discussion. On one hand they are taking out insurance on their homes just in case it burns down even there is a very very small chance it would – and in the next they brush away a whole field of science telling us that their grandchildren most likely will have trouble getting food on their table. I doubt the majority of people have any idea what the stakes here are, or indeed what +2C, +3C, +4C and higher warming really means to our civilization and life on this planet.
Those that do understand this, means all the talk about “if its happening” and whether warming is +0.12C per decade or +0.11C per decade should really be put to rest now. We should be discussing both how we can transition away from fossil fuels as well as climate change mitigation since we are already committed to a fair amount of warming even if we shut down industrial civilization today. Very likely the recent coal boom aerosols alone are holding back a substantial amount of warming in itself. Clearly the solutions are not very compatible with the classical ways of securing economic growth, so new paradigms will have to be invented. One of those is clearly shown in Germany these days, where it’s clear that a majority of people are motivated for the changes due to an acknowledgement of the science already here. If you can solve it with classical capitalism then by all means try it, although effective policy that has a global impact will require strong leadership with little intervention from special interest groups – but where clear goals in carbon emission cuts is first, no matter what the cost is.
John – let’s stick to the IPCC. Am afraid the goal of having a consensus statement can only addmnths if not years to adding any new study to any report.
Furthermore there is the absurd idea of governments having a say on the wording of a science report. Once again, if the consensus were obvious from the contents rather than forced throughrgardless, the IPCC could be more scientific, more agile and more up-to-date.
omnologos said:
“…if this new paper is correct, then the IPCC process is shown too cumbersome and easily put out of date a few weeks after being published with lot of fanfare.”
The IPCC process has a function distinct from the findings of individual papers: namely, to summarize the consensus view of scientists. The results of single papers need to be replicated and analyzed, their data and calculations checked by independent researchers, and their conclusions validated by the community of experts.
The IPCC report exists because global warming is a serious and complex public policy challenge. Political leaders are not scientists and should not be asked to evaluate papers like Cowtan and Way’s.
On the other side, AR5 is about a lot more than the surface temperature record.
I have always claimed that there is indeed a lot of cooling factors going on at the same time now that surely has significant impact on the actual warming of the atmosphere: Many La Ninã’s, less solar output, a doubling of coal use by China the past 10 years. Basically if everything was “normal” we should be experiencing serious cooling of the planet now. Seeing that quite the opposite is really happening, means the warming estimates of a doubling of CO2 has been very likely underestimated.
If we look at how fast the earth gets out of an ice age compared to the slow haul getting it down into one, surely the CO2 boost is of vital importance in addition to the reduced albedo. Considering that there really is only 100ppm CO2 difference between an ice age and none, could indicate that more of the +5C difference in global temperatures really comes from the CO2 component and less from the Milankovich forcing and reduced albedo.
But I dont think the IPCC estimates are that far off though. It might also be a substantial rise in CH4 that is contributing to faster local warming of the Arctic which makes the warming less flat in spite of the current cooling trends.
One of the reasons I’m taking the U of Chicago on-line course on climate is to get a better handle on things like that. One of the things I learned from the energy budget model is that CH4 is a relatively small player, because its absorption bands lie in a part of the IR spectrum where there is much less flux compared to CO2 and H2O.
All that junk like SF6, CH4, CFC’s, etc., because they’re in relatively low concentrations, can cause relatively larger changes, because they’re easier double in concentration with respect to the work of man (if that made any sense). In other words, I think they say SF6 is so ‘much more’ powerful than CO2 with respect to the greenhouse effect, is because 1) there ain’t a lot of it present, and 2) because there isn’t a lot present, it’s easy to double through man’s activities; (and 3) because it gets stuck in the air for 3,000 some years).
The GHG’s have something similar to a f(x) = log x or f(x) = ln x (for positive numbers) type shape to them [where x is number of molecules and f(x) is the resulting temperature change or forcing or the like (I forget)]. So at low concentration (or low number of molecules), the slope of the tangent is greater than it is at the higher concentrations, or more to the point, a given delta x at the ‘left’ side of the curve affects temperature greater than that same delta x for the ‘right’ side of the curve.
But yeah, at some point in the CO2 concentration rise, you start to get that band saturation effect, right there near the peak of the earth’s IR spectrum and it starts grabbing more and more of the worst part of the spec…
After rereading that, I think f(x) is the theoretical temperature at steady state.
This paper says there’s no global warming, it’s only Arctic. And still much more,
This paper says nothing of the sort. It specifically says that the infill data indicates a warming trend GREATER than previously thought. This clearly indicates that warming is more widespread than just at the poles.
IOW the warming trend is SMALLER (close to nil) on the rest of the planet than at the North Pole. IOW the warming is (for the period considered by the paper) NOT global.
This ignoring the mechanisms that are making the Arctic warm faster.
Such warming implies a build up of energy in the Earth’s systems, especially the oceans, the increased energy is then transported to the higher latitudes.
If you are playing the pedant over the strict meanings of warming and energy increase then consider the following.
What is warmth? It is one way in which energy manifests itself
If you look at 1998 to 2012 I would say the warming is still significant even if you exclude the Arctic. The only reason why the short term trend isn’t steeper upwards is the 1998 strong La Ninã which has been pointed out so many times now that its getting extremely silly to repeat anymore now.
So you admit there IS a warming trend even without the polar data. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong.
I wish people would respond to me and not to cartoonish types. My blog says the world is warming, and it says so since 2007.
… says the clown who started this thread with this cartoonish comment:
“This paper says there’s no global warming, it’s only Arctic.”
The message to take away is that the entire globe doesn’t warm up at once and if you have gaps in your observation, you’ll get some trends wrong.
Recall that one of the longstanding predictions of AGW is that the Arctic would warm faster that the rest of the planet.
And we were seeing dramatic reductions in Arctic extent and volume and significant increase in the melting of Greenland during a period of “global cooling”.
Some of that was probably the result of reduced albedo from wildfires, coal combustion and other dark impurities. But that means that less sunlight would be reflected and more heat would be stored in melted ice which would then flow into…..wait for it….. THE OCEAN
Writes he finessing away consideration of many other studies that inform on why the Arctic amplification is so important to fully global climate change.
Another of your arguments from simplification.
Cue another word salad of smoke and mirrors.
Orwellian think speak. Part of it increased the other part remained the same, so the whole didn’t change. See what I mean about math? Stick to rhetoric, math is not your forte.
Ha, ha – fishing for down-votes. I’m going to up-vote that.
I had to enable two levels of sites in NoScript to see that there actually ARE thumbs up/down buttons on these things. I had no idea.
Of course, reality is not determined by popular vote.
Oh – I use the ‘up vote’ to acknowledge a significant set of replies I get on here – a behavior developed from Facebook use. Unlike Facebook, one can’t tell from whom an ‘up vote’ is coming from, but I would imagine the short time period between a ‘reply’ comment and an up vote would be a credible signal of such acknowledgement from the original poster.
My ‘reply’ to several of your replies to my stuff was in the form of a simple ‘up vote’. Sorry if it seemed as though I were ignoring.
————————————————————————————————-
My dirty secret on this blog is that i ‘up vote’ a lot of omnologos comments. I don’t think he’s so much a ‘climate denier’ as he is a ‘rhetoric denier’; though perhaps ‘denier’ isn’t the best word: lots of information gets lost in trying to sum up a viewpoint into a one-word label, as he’ll point out from time to time. Sometimes he’ll say things that have a low probability of being scientifically fair, but are more fair in the sense of what ‘general public’ readers of science communication journalists are left to believe from such communication. Sometimes I just ‘up vote’ him for the entertainment value. And sometimes, after a long day’s work, it’s just nice to log on and see the same folks posting, regardless of their positions.
The down votes have stopped carrying information long ago, by their sheer number and absurdity. Say, if I lament the problem of post-hoc reasoning a small riot gets started, but it’s Tobis, well, nobody notices.
Hence a lot of the negative feedback is just mindless posturing. As for the up votes, if I were interested I would not be posting here 😉 😉 -but by all means, keep voting if that’s what makes you tick.
Up-vote for that. Or should it be down-vote?
omnologos said:
“This paper says there’s no global warming, it’s only Arctic.”
This is inaccurate in two ways: this is a paper about surface temperature, not global warming as a whole; and it actually does not find no rise in surface temperatures elsewhere.
I can continue. All previous explanations of the ‘pause’ were wrong. Including the idea that it was hiding in the oceans.
Wrong? Did you read anything in the post? It hints to the possibility that all of them were right, but in spite of this the warming is still very significant. And if you then also add GISS temps to the mix you see that the warming is in fact continuing up even though with all the “explanations of a pause” the planet should be severely cooling.
Do you have a special filter in your brain that twists the words into something completely different than what they actually say?
John – you have misunderstood Tobis’ point. Besides, the idea that all explanations were correct seems particularly daft. There is only so much heat to pass around.
OTOH on the basis of this paper we can say that all the people who, on the basis of the previous and limited data, said there was a pause, they were right, in the sense of being right within the limits of the previous data. IOW all the people who tried to say there was no pause, they were wrong, again within the limits of the previous data.
“IOW all the people who tried to say there was no pause, they were wrong, again within the limits of the previous data.”
You are again assuming there is no actual global warming happening, even if the data the “pause” was based on was incomplete. The majority of people who embrace the AGW theory believe there IS global warming and WILL BE global warming even if the thermometer outside their window does not show it. Its the denier-camp that has been so hung up on atmospheric temperatures, while most climatologists have said the same thing all the time, there is an energy imbalance because of increased CO2 levels that will trap heat. To quote Trenberth (watch Peter video above please): “Some goes into the atmosphere, some go into the oceans, some go into melting the ice…”
To make it simpler for you to understand. Knowing the physical properties are in place for global warming and that there is no change to this we know there will be continued warming, we just don’t know where the heat will go. That really is enough knowledge for anyone to act on the information.
John – please let’s not split hair on the meaning of ‘pause’. The paper says the trend was underestimated, and it’s now in line with IPCC predictions. This means that, using theprevious and more limited data, it was correct to say that the warming was not as fast as the IPCC had predicted. Considering the trends in past decades, and the inability to discern a statistically significant trend since I believe 1997, some would have called the smaller trend a ‘pause’.
Disclaimer: I have a feeling this new paper is rubbish.
only so much heat to pass around
Thanks to the huge heat capacity of Earth’s oceans, there’s more than enough.
If the oceans are receiving only 2% less of the incoming or re-radiated heat that would mean a 50-100% increase in the amount of heat available to the ice caps, land or atmosphere.
I was responding to the suggestion that all the post-hoc reasonings were correct at the same time. They cannot be, because there is only so much heat to pass around.
for example, if this paper is true, there is literally no need to imagine heat in the deep of the ocean, because, as the authors point out, the warming trend goes back to IPCC-prediction levels.
That’s a big assumption to make without doing the math.
An increase in ocean heat uptake has been measured but there were objections that it didn’t fully account for the “missing heat”.
You may well be right about “only so much heat to pass around” but unless you’ve done the analysis to show how much missing heat there was, how much would be required for the amount Arctic warming that was overlooked, etc, it’s just speculation.
And the reason to look for heat in the oceans wasn’t only because someone wanted to make Trenberth look good:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120320_antarcticbottomwater.html
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2011-2015/issue-23-december-2012/science/antarctic-bottom-water-disappearing
Great, thanks for the NOAA link.
Morin,indeed,if the various hypotheses about where the missing heat content is ‘hiding’ turn out to be correct,and in the range that are suspected,then what will our world look like on the day that we have a 1998 style El Nino, a return of sun spots,a lull in volcanic activity,an ice free arctic,and much fewer particulates due to countries finally cleaning up their carbon burning ways?
We have indeed made a deal with the devil I think.
“I can continue. All previous explanations of the ‘pause’ were wrong. Including the idea that it was hiding in the oceans.”
The idea? Increased heat has been MEASURED in the deeper ocean.
WTF are you talking about?
omnologos said:
“I can continue. All previous explanations of the ‘pause’ were wrong. Including the idea that it was hiding in the oceans.”
On the contrary, this does not contradict the observable facts that we 1) have had predominantly La Nina conditions in recent years; 2) have been in an extended period of solar quiescence; and 3) can measure the vast amount of heat that has gone into the oceans, particularly since 2010 in the deep oceans below 700 meters.
Nor would it logically do so; the observation that the surface temperature had continued to rise does not mean that heat cannot also have gone into the oceans; etc.
Stephen – you may want to elaborate. As I see it: surface trends were not as steep as expected, so the idea was passed around that the slowdown/pause/flattening-up/whatever was due to the heat going to the depth of the oceans.
Now that the trends have been found to be exactly as steep as they were expected be, I do not see why we would still have to presume that trends are not as steep as expected because the heat is going to the depth of the oceans.
I am not questioning the heat content of the oceans. I am questioning the link between what goes down there, and what happens to surface temperatures.
omnologos said:
“As I see it: surface trends were not as steep as expected, so the idea was passed around that the slowdown/pause/flattening-up/whatever was due to the heat going to the depth of the oceans.”
First a caution: the data that are being reanalyzed in this study are short-term. It certainly looks as though the methodology is a contribution to greater accuracy going forward, and it is certainly interesting that the study points to a short-term trend more in line with the long-term trend; but a continuation of the same trend would hardly have been “expected” in any case – climate is not weather, is senior, as it were, to weather, and so it is only through longer trends that we can evaluate it.
An uptake of heat by the oceans, including the deep oceans, has certainly been measured – that is more than just an “idea”. Since the record El Nino of 1998 we have had almost entirely neutral and La Nina ENSO conditions, and, as you may be aware, during La Nina more heat moves into the ocean, leaving surface temperatures cooler.
Beyond that, the sun has been unusually quiet, transferring less heat to the earth, in the last few years. We are fortunate for that, but it is also not likely to last.
omnologos said:
“Now that the trends have been found to be exactly as steep as they were expected be, I do not see why we would still have to presume that trends are not as steep as expected because the heat is going to the depth of the oceans.”
I’m a little bit surprised that you take this new study, evidently, at face value. Anyway, again, the short-term trend, ANY short-term trend, can hardly be “expected”.
But we know that our planetary system is adding heat at a furious rate; the heat has to go somewhere.
omnologos said:
“I am not questioning the heat content of the oceans. I am questioning the link between what goes down there, and what happens to surface temperatures.”
That’s an odd comment – heat can move between the oceans and the atmosphere, yes? So if the oceans are taking up more heat, there is less to heat the atmosphere, yes? (La Nina, in other words.) Ocean temperatures to some depth in the waters east of the Philippines apparently turbocharged the recent record cyclone as it approached landfall. Ocean heat is the main driver of the radical reduction of Arctic sea ice in summer.
Stephen – to clarify
I’m a little bit surprised that you take this new study, evidently, at face value.
As I wrote in a couple of other comments, my point is that this study, taken at face value, ends up being too much of a revolution in many aspects of the science of climate change. That’s what I am trying to illustrate.
OTOH I can sense some caution on its actual significance, and that’s how it should be.
omnologos wrote:
“As I wrote in a couple of other comments, my point is that this study, taken at face value, ends up being too much of a revolution in many aspects of the science of climate change.”
I don’t see it, frankly. The short-term surface trend is .12 instead of .05 degrees Celsius per decade, if their methodology is correct. But the short-term surface trend is only a tiny part in both space and time of the domain of climate science:
1) the atmosphere has a heat capacity a couple of orders of magnitude below that of the oceans – besides which they are connected and interact; and
2) it is ultimately only by looking at long-term trends that we can isolate the signal from the noise.
The “pause” was always a mythical beast, requiring a start date that coincided with the record El Nino of ’97-’98; that was essentially a straw-man argument, requiring that climate scientists claim increased surface temperatures over any selected period – therefore, at bottom, that each year had to be warmer than the previous.
Certainly the technique that these authors use is a contribution and will be a valuable tool in the coming decades; perhaps the results point to a higher climate sensitivity, though they are hardly a test of it. But in any case, this new study is hardly a revolution.
Stephen – your argument is hardly compatible with the fanfare by Rahmstorf and Nuccitelli. As I said, I am fine with that.
ps the pause/slowdown/missingheat can be actually traced back to 1997, not just the El-Nino of 1998. But let’s get into that here.
omnologos said:
“…the pause/slowdown/missingheat can be actually traced back to 1997, not just the El-Nino of 1998.”
The record El Nino began in May of 1997 and ended in April of 1998.
But in any case it doesn’t matter whether you start in 1997 or 1998, it’s still an illegitimate cherrypick.
“Stephen – your argument is hardly compatible with the fanfare by Rahmstorf and Nuccitelli. As I said, I am fine with that.”
I’ve read Stefan’s article carefully. I found no incompatibility, and I am fine with that.
But even you understand that you cant add an outlier in the start or end of a data series and expect to see a signal, even if you place it as the second value after the start or end.
As Stephen say, the whole pause is a “myth” based on cherry picking. The last decade is still the warmest ever recorded.
And as I have said so many times now, this paper really just strengthens the evidence by showing that in addition to the added heat in the oceans and melting of ice we also have significant atmospheric warming. It would have been nice if the cooling trends were alone responsible for the melting of the ice and an actual “pause” in atmospheric temperatures, but its really clear that the CO2 levels are so high now that even strong cooling natural variations (including man made ones from aerosols) still doesn’t help.
As many have pointed out now, we can begin to wonder how things will look over the next decade if we get a return of solar output and some La Ninã’s. Considering that its very likely that the Arctic is also practically ice free some time this next decade, the added solar absorption in the sea those summer months will make temperatures soar (both sea and atmospheric).
A myth is not a myth only because everybody says it’s a myth. Read RC again, Without the new paper’s infilling, the pause is still a pause (or slowdown, or whatever you want to call it). It’s a pause in surface temps, that somebody says happening whilst the deep oceans are warming.
It is not a ‘myth’. Maybe an artefact, or something caused by current ignorance of all the details of the climate, or not enough time has passed, or or or. But not a ‘myth’ any more than the idea that the cooling world of the 1960’s was going to still cool further, even if eventually it would heat up (that’s all in Mitchell (1972)).
It’s a myth because the data is skewed from a large El Ninõ at start, and its a myth because decadal variations can perfectly create periods of less atmospheric warming. Global warming has not had any “pause” whatsoever.
IIRC current mainstream estimate is that there shouldn’t be pauses lasting more than 17 years, but there is no agreement on when to start counting the 17 years from. Whatever. I guess the pause will stop being a debating point when finally the temperatures will go noticeably above 1998/2005, for whatever reason.
So you are expecting what _you_ call a “pause” i atmospheric temperatures to continue, and then fall? If so, what is your explanation for this? The continually added heat magically disappear in a black hole in the center of the earth?
If there is a “pause”, and then starts to rise. Then what?
If it starts to rise again considerably in the coming years. Then what?
If I had to put money I’d say the pause will stop 😉 or in common English, temps will climb higher at some point in the not-remote future.
If they do, we will continue discussing why. If they don’t we will continue discussing why. Not much change there ;-D
It’s interesting to experiment a bit with the Temperature Trend Calculator at skepticalscience.com:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
If I choose e.g. HADCRUT 4 and choose 1998-2013 i get +0.042 per decade.
If I then add 2 more years and choose 1996-2013 i get +0.094 per decade.
This alone tells us that its impossible to say anything about trends on a 15-17 year scale as I can reproduce with one simple example where warming trend doubles in difference.
What I think we should be discussing is not when there will be a new temperature record, but rather how we can get CO2 emissions down and still retain a decent civilization. We perfectly know that the current and future rise in CO2 will increase the warming – so waiting for some years to see if there was anything behind a “pause” is unnecessary. Its classical stalling tactics, there is already significant enough evidence in the last 50 years of warming for us to get CO2 emissions down fast.
Careful John. Things aren’t that simple. Ask Ben Santer.
As for reducing CO2 emissions I am all for a cost-benefit approach 😉 -as you might guess, that ain’t simple either. Unless one believes a catastrophe is a certainty in the future.
Well, the main problem is that the CO2 already in the atmosphere is already enough for substantial warming, even if we cut all CO2 emissions today. Question really is if it is already enough to cross several tipping points where we get massive methane emissions and a runaway state similar to past history. This is really the wildcard that can seriously hamper anything we can do unless we manage to invent some super carbon sucking devices.
At the same time, its really impossible to scale down industrial civilization fast enough without serious economical interruptions – or even change of politics globally. And by that I mean, even if USA is able to turn on a dime, it doesn’t mean China will – so perhaps serious trade interruptions will have to be done like banning imports from polluting countries – as well as stopping industry from establishing i countries with high emissions. Knowing that this will affect a lot of US companies, I have no real expectation that this will happen anyway. Our own right government here in Norway seems to want to solve this by carbon trading which has no real effect. If only they had used that money to establish some renewable energy company in a place with a lot of sun or wind (our own for the latter). Doesn’t exactly help that we got a climate denier as our agriculture minister and Norway is increasingly dependent on imported food.
This is too true. I believe that we’re going to have to move to carbon-negative energy systems, where most energy comes from non-fossil sources and carbon from sources which produce CO2 in substantially pure form (cheap and low-energy to capture) is sequestered. For instance, bio-charcoal used in direct-carbon fuel cells produces nearly pure CO2. Sequestering that CO2 takes carbon from the atmosphere, generates energy, and puts the carbon away.
And the interruptions themselves will not only stop any investment in RE, they will drive people back to the easiest-to-get fuels no matter how dirty and destructive they are. They’ll cut down forests, they’ll dig coal by hand… just to stay warm in the winter.
There’s an undercurrent apparent here which views energy qua energy as sinful. Not as something to be de-carbonized, but something that’s evil in itself. Maybe it scratches some deep moral itch to view others as sinners who must atone for their carbon and their parents’, unto the seventh generation… but the planet doesn’t give a damn how morally upright we feel, it cares how fast we get the carbon problem dealt with. The real success stories, like France (with per-capita emissions far lower than Denmark) show that engineering works better for this than sanctimony. Nuclear engineering, to be specific.
Another issue: this paper implies that there were climate scientists, maybe even some at the September IPCC meeting, who knew a big explanation and a huge change in the estimated trend were in the paperwork and still kept all their colleagues and government delegates in the dark about them.
It is true that the IPCC has deadlines for considering paper but still, an exception would have been easily understood and surely appreciated by all. Basically WG1 is out of date after two months.
Science goes on. The IPCC reports have always been a synthesis of the state of scientific understanding at a point in time. It’s a snapshot.
All this paper says is that they’ve tried a new ‘improved’ method for filling in gaps in coverage for the thermometer record. It doesn’t radically change anything (unless you’ve irredeemably nailed your flag on the pause mast, but that was always going to be a silly thing to do). Neither will it be the last word.
It’s hardly cause to stop the IPCC process.
In general I have found Omnologos’ posts to be quite beneficial; highlighting unclear parts of articles or unconsidered factors. The ensuing exchange often far expands the understanding that the original article provided.
In this case, not so much. Here he’s displaying less of a “devils’ advocate” role than a mental block.
No matter. He has a keen and intelligent mind and I’m sure he’ll contribute valuable input to future articles.
In a way these exchanges resemble a game of whack-a-mole only the mole always gets whacked in the end.
“keen and intelligent mind”?
You owe me a new keyboard and another coffee!
Same here, new keyboard.
After all many of us have realised for years that there are important papers that miss the IPCC deadline. Submitted papers have to have passed peer review and then be studied by any of the IPCC contributing authors who’s field of interest happens to intersect with that of the paper’s subject matter.
We have also understood that the IPCC has erred on the side of minimising impacts – this because otherwise they would have frightened the horses (the vested interest corporate or political) into total non co-operation. The experience of Ben Santer with the Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 being a salutary example.
Lines have to be drawn somewhere.
Climate research is proceeding at a faster pace, and has also expanded greatly, since the IPCC was launched and it is for these reasons that a successor process to that of the IPCC is thought necessary, not because the IPCC was junk. It wasn’t.
I don’t think so. His posts are an exercise in obfuscation by a scientifically illiterate mind. They deliberately lead off topic to a rhetorical, semantic fantasyland dominated by personal opinion, hearsay, and frequent misuse and abuse of the phrase ad hominem. They are a distraction and irrelevant. Witness the frequent frustrated efforts to explain basic science, physics, and math which he has no grasp. Instead he retreats into layman’s pre physics 101 view of the universe with no comprehension of his ignorance, a la Monckton. He is living proof of Dunning Kreuger.
Now now …no matter what Peter says, commentaries about the person instead of the argument are the definition of being a troll.
Back to the topic guys, or admit you’ve got no arguments left. The paper btw contains a nice and humble disclaimer. So I’ll remove it from the rubbish category and move it to the “wild speculation” box.
If anybody believes the authors are onto something they’ll support a scientific campaign to verify the infills. That’s how science progresses.
I really don’t get what you find to be hard to grasp with the paper and indeed the supplied video explaining it. Its really very simple. You have thermometers that cover a certain area, and then you have satellites which cover the whole planet – they measure slightly different things. Now the question remains, for the places that don’t have any surface measurements, should we leave those out, or should we try to interpolate the data, or add a meaningful mapping of the satellite data that ADDS INFORMATION to the data with holes? Even a kid would grasp this, but still you write: “So I’ll remove it from the rubbish category and move it to the “wild speculation” box.” – Exactly what about this paper is wild speculation?
So you have warming, and this adds additional warming that we knew of anyway by looking at the GISS dataset. Which one is correct? Doesn’t really matter if you ask me, they both show warming. Knowing that there is also substantial warming going into the oceans they also aren’t needed to conclude that there is an energy imbalance. But I guess the moment deniers finally accept that there is global warming going on it has to be any other reason but CO2, right?
Ain’t that easy. Satellites don’t cover it all. Besides if these guys are right Hansen’s smoothing needs adjustment. Another revolution in climate science.
At the end of the day this paper subverts so much that was previously known, one would hope for robust evidence. Given their disclaimer the authors don’t much believe it either. Note how my criticisms are all assuming these guys are right. Other people are taking the paper apart already.
No doubt, “the usual suspects” are “picking it apart” with the same vigor they are trying to pick apart a whole field within science by substituting real research with pixie dust and pulling science out of a hat.
I am sorry you have no credibility here and neither does Anthony Watts and his sub-puppet bloggers.
Keep the focus, John. Of course there is no point on this blog to take this new study apart. That’s why all my criticisms are based on the assumption that the work is what it claims to be.
Yet another point: as I said this work if true and solid is big, very big. Nobody had challenged Hansen’s smoothing before, it tells the IPCC that their process is useless and their reports immediately out of date, it confirms a slowing down of warming everywhere apart from the North Pole, etc etc.
Now the question is…how many of the “big guns” of climate change have endorsed it? I am talking about the “star scientists” we often read about in these pages. Are they ready to accept the consequences of their endorsement? Rahmstorf seems to have, but then he’s not new to being too enthusiastic about new ideas. Anybody else?
I can’t really see where the conclusions from IPCC were wrong, and where the method showed there was substantial warming going on. They even had a big graph there showing how little of the warming that actually goes into the atmosphere compared to e.g. melting of ice or warming of the oceans.
So if Hansens “smoothing” lacked information that could be computed using GISS data, it probably means this wasn’t necessary to confirm human impact on climate change. We still don’t know how accurate this new paper is, only that it strengthens IPCC’s case. I do believe the GISS data in its full has also been used to show the same thing many times over.
Where are you going with this? That the science isnt finished? Yes, we knew that, for each year that goes we get more accurate methods for showing how much the human CO2 emissions are to the planets biosphere. Although personally I think we have more than enough confidence to seriously act, as I really think my children deserves a livable planet. Although with the current course we seem to all be going the way of the dodo with imbeciles stalling any real change.
John – Rahmstorf said that following this paper the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared”. I have made the point that this is the first time anybody goes against Hansen’s smoothing. Etc etc.
Now you make it sound like just any other paper. I am fine with that.
I’d like to remind you who started the “pause” discussion in the first place.
This looks a lot like back in the 70s when there was a lot of hoopla about an ice age, a diversion tactic by the deniers based upon mis-interpretation of some science discussing the effect of aerosol cooling overtaking CO2 warming. Very few publishing scientists said that CO2 was less of a greenhouse gas that would have substantial warming effect, but still the media and the deniers went on and on and on, even today about the scientists predicting an ice age. Absolutely every discussion, being it youtube or some news article always have some clown popping up and saying that the scientists predicted an ice age in an attempt to discredit the science.
This is really just the same thing, only now the noise can be spread over so many more medias and reach people way faster, so its more effective. The idea is to make scientists look wobbly and uncertain in their field, which then should be interpreted as them not knowing a thing about what they are talking about.
And you omno, are just another denier-troll yapping about this in the same manner, even though the science will not be affected by this as we know there IS warming, and there WILL BE warming based on the knowledge that increased CO2 increases the planets ability to absorb energy. And knowing this the only way to control this is by lowering CO2 emissions.
So my question, why are you yapping about this at all?
Am sorry John…I keep forgetting how puerile your arguments are. Now you’re imagining “deniers” travelling back in time to fight CO2 in the 1970s. And you still believe it’s sensible to interpret a discussion by labeling anyone with a differing opinion a “denier”.
Happy goose-stepping!
But you are still evading the question. What is your point? Why are you even here?
I promised long ago never to allow the discussion to move to myself as topic. Stop being a troll,focus on the topic proposed by Peter, study a little bit more.
Did I mention the comments were all about the behavior, not the man? I forgot to mention the blinding egoism. Look at me, look at me! Everything is about him. Did you ever notice that every topic winds up being about His Greatness.
It ain’t my fault. I keep writing dozens of comments inviting people to back to topic. I guess some intervene without caring for the topic.
Just visited his website. Never mind.
I find omnologos to be hilarious. It’s entertaining to watch emotion and logic work at two different speeds as he comes to terms with his worldview being turned upside down. BTW, to Glenn, I like the analogy where the “mole always gets whacked in the end.” Nicely done!
“What that would mean is that in reality the underlying rate of warming is still accelerating. Ouch.”
Ouch indeed.
Omno’ the forgetful, or is it just plain ignorant. [1]
Well lookee here they did just that:
The global cooling myth
and that is only for starters.
Oh look! Equating denial specifically with jack-boots. Godwin rides again.
And you Omno’ have the gall to throw out accusations of providing puerile arguments.
Thanks for the ‘Black Knight’ farce here.
[1] BTW that latter is a statement of condition and not an ad hominem the meaning of which you need to go look up seeing the accusations that you have thrown out here of late.
It’s a farce of your own construction. John suggested there were global warming deniers in the 1970s, colluding with journalists. I cannot imagine anything more fanciful than that.
Global warming research have been attacked for a very long time, way before blogs and internet, surely you know that as well omno. The media picked up the story about the cooling effect from aerosols and made it into a new ice age story, one that got parroted and used as yet another attack that the scientists couldn’t agree within themselves.
Considering that the blogs and discussions are still parroting this today means the idea got stuck in peoples heads, and with it their respect for the scientific community. The “merchants of doubt” have been very effective into creating people with opinions like you omno, who easily swallow the anti-science propaganda from these people. Never truly critical, but generally just agree with an agenda that strengthens your comfort zone. There is a reason why Gore called his book/film “An inconvenient truth”. It truly IS inconvenient, and personally, like probably most scientists really, we really wished it wasn’t true.
I discuss with people with the same views on a daily basis and they have a view that generally goes against anything that can affect economic growth, even if its consequences in the future is an inhabitable planet. It’s almost like its “worth a gamble” just like the planet is some kind of lottery ticket or stock market. And generally they have no idea that anything they do or buy today has external costs to the planets biological life. Western society in general has really no respect for the slave labor going into producing a lot of the stuff we surround our self with too. If we can’t care for our own species, surely as heck we wont give a damn about pollinating bees dying from pesticides or stupid small plankton creatures we can’t see that provide our atmosphere with 50% of the atmosphere.
I challenge you omno, to step out of your bubble and open your eyes a bit, as your gut reactions of spewing gall every time someone touches your comfort zone bubble isn’t what you should be using your energy on here.
I am not sure I would accept invitation to step out of a bubble from somebody so completely unfamiliar with the climate change debate of the 1960s and 1970s. I think you’re mixing it up with the debate of the mid-1990s.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-basic.htm
We are sliding OT here but it’d be nice to figure out where in those SkS page anybody claims that global warming deniers in the 1970s were colluding with journalists to scare people with ice ages.
Please list also who those ‘deniers’ were.
I am not talking about scientists who thought cooling was in the pipeworks. You mentioned ‘deniers’, you will find ‘deniers’ please 😉
As a hint, Kukla. Another hint, Mitchell. You are in for a suprise or two.
Skeptical Science has an article about the authors of this paper trying to raise a modest amount of funds to make the paper open access:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/open_access_cw2013.html