Global warming pause

OK sounds like a good reference I will try to read it because I like Muller's general approach. You know more than me on the politics, so give me a hint what you mean by "all that it implies" that J. Curry is second author. Seems to me both Muller and Curry try to explain things to the public in open manner and are not overly one-sided.

 

IMHO we should not judge research based on who did it, but on the strength of the science itself, and if we are not experts on the science, on the way the authors handle peer review. IMHO this paper aids our understanding of the data, which should help build better climate models that incorporate the various oscillation.

IMHO the latest research is consistent with a lower ghg sensitivity to the planet, but the data is quite noisy. This should be good news, but not news with great confidence.

If AR5 does not shrink the lower estimate, then it won't be following the most recent research, unless the lower estimate has now greatly raised the lower estimate of ghg by 2100. That may not be a bad assumption as we seem further from China reducing ghg than the optimists were considering in AR4.

 

But wait isn't it settle science, i.e. Scientific Fact, that humans have increased CO2 levels, thereby causing global air T to rise?

Isn't it a Fact that the human caused CO2 level continues to rise?

Therefore, global air T should continue to rise or is there something wrong with the settled science?

A matter of discussion, yeah, that's the understatement of the decade!​

​

edited for clarity . . .​

 

How do you process 'smaller increase' and get reduction?

 

Yes both those statements are true.
The first statement I would change to be more accurate, and foster understanding. According to current physics theory, carbon dioxide will directly contribute to global temperature in response to the log of concentration. This temperature contribution will be higher at the poles and less at the equator, based on current understanding of atmospheric physics. There is also positive and negative feedback in the earths climatic system. There is disagreements about how strong this net feedback is today, and how much of the temperature forced heats various levels of the oceans, and how long it takes ghg to warm the atmosphere. The consensus is the sensitivity is approximately 2-4.5 degrees C for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, but there are theories that it can be higher or lower. Feedback may be quite non-linear, and we have seen non-linear feedback in the ice proxy record.

The global air temperature is rising when averaged along any decent period of time to account for natural variation. There is nothing wrong with the settled science. There is much we do not know about feedback and other mechanisms to warm and cool the earth. There is a problem when people act as if catastrophic things will occur, and that is part of the settled science. Catastrophic consequences are not settled.

 

^ Got ahead of myself and should have included the human element, I'll edit for clarity.

 

Clearly yes for the first statement. However, the second statement needs to account for ocean temps. That was the major point of the Opening post. Evidence is accumulating that air temperature increases and ocean temperature increases are not increasing in lockstep. Specifically, the ocean has been absorbing more heat than the atmosphere recently, hence the change (but not reversal) in atmospheric heating rate.

Is this in question in any way? All of the controversy usually surrounds the final effect of all this addition of CO2, not the source. (Just because someone acknowledges the physics of CO2 accumulation does not make them a believer of future disaster.)

It is continuing to rise. It's the rate of rise that is different than many primitive models predicted. Clearly there is a problem with models, but the basic physics did not change. Note that many activists (including some scientists) want it to be catastrophic for political and other non-scientific reasons. They ensure only polarized discussions are inflicted in general discussions, making rational discussions very rare.

Discussing the science is always problematic when the vast majority of the public are "educated" by the media and have no interest in examining the details themselves.

 

I certainly think Hansen's work should be read objectively. I do not mean without exception though. When we look at someone like Phil Jones, that was caught conspiring to hide data that was contrary to his politically motivated scientific findings, we should not give him the benefit of the doubt. He has been caught and any paper that he is included on is tainted.

I have only had a chance to skim
Climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene - Previdi - 2013 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library
I see nothing here that would contradict the fact GCM should be predicting lower sensitivities to ghg. We do have some slow feedback research sited though.

This boils down to guestimating sensitivity during a period in the ice proxy temperature recreation during a tipping point in the natural ghg cycle during the Holocene transition. I don't find the number meaningful, but the concept of the tipping point with higher warming definitely looks to be recorded in the ice.

From the conclusion we may already be at a tipping point, in which case added ghg won't really have much sensitivity at all as we are going to get hot no matter what we do.

 

How can you possibly view science objectively when certain scientists have been wrong their entire careers?
Hansen never made a correct prediction.
Trenberth says AGW has increased hurricanes.Hes wrong and there is concrete evidence showing a decrease in hurricanes and decades of worldwide lessoning of accumulated cyclone energy.
Now we are expected to believe a model which proves the missing travesty of AGW is in the deep ocean.Where there are no measurements btw.
So we should accept their next fibs with the same weight as scientists with a solid track record?
The IPCC has been wrong for the past 17 years .
Cry wolf for 17 years .When theres no wolf then admit its not a wolf its a poodle.
But that poodle is really mean and will do as much damage as the wolf that never appeared.
We have a 95% certainty ,even though weve been 100% wrong for 17 years.

 

I didnt say that .I said concrete evidence proves Trenberth wrong.
So why believe his next BS?
Its some wisdom Ive acquired in my lifetime.
Dont bother associating with people who are consistently wrong.
Dont associate with liars either.
Internet and PChat is an exception.Im comfortable with brainwashed zombies and liars.

 

There seems to be two camps. Those that require belief in cAGW or else you are called a denier, and excluded from the club. Then there is the camp that finds holes in cAGW and claims there is no AGW. There appears to be a scientific consensus on the AGW, but quite a different reality out their in the political world.

Camp A - Trenberth. Scientific method does not matter. You must believe in catastrophic global warming or you are a denier and an enemy.

Camp B - Watts. All the catastrophic predictions are coming false. These are the guys that are controling global warming science so that must be wrong too.

Both camps are highly political. Both camps are wrong, just like republicans and democrats in congress


Remove the catastrophic from the AGW there is a very wide consensus. Put it in there, and Trenberth must be right that huricanes will be more frequent. The data doesn't matter that katrina and sandy were not out of the normal from natural variation. The data actually says we are at the low end of possibilities of natural variation, AGW may be reducing huricanes. But if you fight with Trenberth you are a denier, even if you publish peer reviewed papers supported by the evidence. You are the enemy.

If you fight with WUWT you are an idiot. Either way there is name calling and neither side wants science they want the politics that drives money and fame to themselves, even if many know that are just spreading distortions.

What about the missing heat? Well its not missing the model is wrong If your model over estimates the temperature from ghg, than you need to fix the model. There seems to be a fair amount of consensus that the models are poor with heat transfer to mixing oceans. That does not mean the sensitivity numbers are correct though. The heat isn't trapped or hidden. If its in the oceans we should be able to measure and model it.

Yep and even many skeptics of the catastrophic part of the AGW or ACC agree

I completely agree. Mojo has been WUWT too long.

Until climate models accurately portrey what is going on in the oceans though, the catastrophic part of cAGW will meet with some skepticism, and should.

 

According to 'popular press', the 'pause' was real and dismissed by some obscure collection of e-mails in a government scientist plot. Regardless: There was no pause « RealClimate

The latest findings confirm the results of Karl et al. 2015 from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which Gavin described in a previous post here on RC. The NOAA analysis received unusual attention because of the harassment it drew from the chair of the US House Science Committee and the subpoena demand for emails.

Science is convincing because it builds on independent assessments, which either confirm or disagree with previous findings. A scientific consensus is established when many independent lines of evidence underpin the same conclusions.

It is important to realize that science is about universal truths, which means that you should get a consistent picture in a comprehensive analysis. The idea of a hiatus was indeed inconsistent with other indicators, such as the global sea level which continued to rise unabated (Watson et al, 2015). And there was no reason to think that changes in the cryosphere and precipitation had ceased either.​

I'd used a plot of local maximums and local minimums to create two lines showing global warming continued during the pause. It is a math trick that allows dealing with noisy data where an ordinary average won't work. Regardless, it looks like we're about to see more 'taken out of context' from e-mails, a familiar technique used to distort reality.

Bob Wilson

 

Wth?
You and Wilson are delusional.
The Climitegate2 revelations will show that NOAA has been faking the data .Not a good thing with regard to esteemed scientists who turn out to be data frauds.