Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: Global Warming Hiatus

  1. #1

    Default Global Warming Hiatus

    So apparently not only has there not been a hiatus, there's likely been a slight acceleration in warming in the last decade or so. I'm sure this is worth arguing about here, yes? Does anybody actually care? The Powers don't care all that much, clearly. Our political and economic systems (our biology, too?) discourage long term thinking, don't they? Who should care?

    Much-touted global warming pause never happened

    What if the missing heat has been there all along? In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) flagged an odd phenomenon: Atmospheric temperature data collected over the past few decades suggested that global warming had slowed down beginning around 1998. Global warming skeptics crowed, and scientists delved into the global climate system to find out where the missing heat had gone. But a new analysis suggests that the real culprits are the data themselves. When better corrections for various sources of bias are applied to the data, the authors say, the so-called global warming hiatus vanishes—and in fact, they argue, global warming may have sped up.


    That won't startle some scientists, who say the “hiatus” was always a misnomer. “There is no hiatus or pause,” says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, who prefers the term “temporary slowdown.” But he and others do think something has changed since the late 1990s: Perhaps the deep waters of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are storing more heat, or volcanic eruptions and pollution have been shading the planet and offsetting the warming. What's more, they note, 1998 was a particularly strong (and hot) El Niño year—not an ideal starting point for determining a subsequent trend.


    But the temperature data themselves—collected by a variety of techniques from land and sea—have also been a source of concern, says Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, and the lead author on the new paper published online this week in Science. Climate scientists have worked for years to improve corrections for bias in the data. “It's an ongoing activity,” Karl says.


    Creating a single, self-consistent, long-term record of sea surface temperature (SST) has proven especially tricky. For much of the past 2 centuries, ocean temperatures were measured from ships, by means of a bucket thrown over the side. Different fleets used different measurement techniques and, over time, various types of buckets—first wooden ones, then specially designed canvas ones. Eventually, buckets gave way to ship engine intake measurements, taken when water was brought in to cool the machinery. And by the end of the 20th century, far more accurate buoy measurements took over. Each technique required different corrections.


    Another challenge was incorporating land-based readings from thousands of new measurement stations in regions that have long had scant coverage, particularly Asia, South America, and Africa. New data from these regions have been amassed over the past 5 years as part of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, which released its first report just last year.


    In their paper, Karl's team sums up the combined effect of additional land temperature stations, corrected commercial ship temperature data, and corrected ship-to-buoy calibrations. The group estimates that the world warmed at a rate of 0.086°C per decade between 1998 and 2012—more than twice the IPCC's estimate of about 0.039°C per decade. The new estimate, the researchers note, is much closer to the rate of 0.113°C per decade estimated for 1950 to 1999. And for the period from 2000 to 2014, the new analysis suggests a warming rate of 0.116°C per decade—slightly higher than the 20th century rate. “What you see is that the slowdown just goes away,” Karl says.


    And that's without including the elephant in the room: Arctic warming. A 2014 paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society highlighted how the scarcity of temperature data from the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, has produced a significant “cool” bias in the global trends, especially since 1997.


    “The post-1998 period is really difficult, partially because of Arctic warming and partly because of the change in SST measurements,” says Kevin Cowtan, a computational scientist at the University of York in the United Kingdom, who co-authored the 2014 paper. “The fact that it's caused problems is completely understandable, if unfortunate.”


    To estimate how Arctic warming might alter global trends, Karl's team used a nonlinear technique to fill in the data gaps for the polar region. Including the Arctic, they found, would add between 0.02°C and 0.03°C of warming per decade. Karl notes that this is just an estimate, however, and wasn't included in the paper's final reanalysis of recent warming.


    Not everyone agrees that the 21st century slowdown is entirely a data artifact. Mann notes that there is “very clear” evidence of a slowdown in large-scale warming in the tropical Pacific; in a previous paper, he and others linked it to a natural decades-long climate pattern that brought about La Niña–like cooler conditions in the past decade (Science, 27 February, p. 988). “The tropical Pacific definitely warmed less over that time period than climate models had predicted,” Mann says.


    Cowtan agrees, adding that there are a lot of lingering uncertainties in the data, particularly in the Arctic, as well as in some of the shipboard corrections during the last century. “My feeling is, they've got the right answer—but not for quite the right reasons,” Cowtan says. “My guess is there's a little bit too much ocean warming [in their calculations], and not enough from the Arctic.”


    Karl says his team is planning ways to address the Arctic temperature issue next. He also says research into the slowdown has spurred important insights that help clarify the global climate system. “Global temperatures might have been even warmer than we're reporting had some of these other factors not come into play,” Karl says. “And once these things play out, we may find we're warming at an even more rapid rate than we saw at the end of the last century.”
    http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...never-happened
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #2
    This won't convince many climate sceptics I suspect as its by "correcting" the data that the outcome that warming exists is revealed, rather than simple raw data.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #3
    RB, the fact of the matter is that climate change skeptics aren't scientists. I don't mean that they aren't climatologists - most people are climatologists. But people with a strong science background are well aware that something as enormous and varied as our climate is going to have all sorts of complexities about data collection and analysis. There is no such thing as 'raw data' here. It's just part of reality. And to some extent, basic thermodynamics tells us that the Earth is going to warm substantially, though the pace of that warming is still a source of great scientific discussion.

  4. #4
    I agree, I'm not saying the corrections etc are wrong, the sceptics (who of course aren't scientists) don't want to believe in the science and will just dismiss this evidence..
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I agree, I'm not saying the corrections etc are wrong, the sceptics (who of course aren't scientists) don't want to believe in the science and will just dismiss this evidence..
    I'm not sure you can say all climate skeptics are not scientists. There are a vast array of skeptics, and varying degrees of skepticism, and you are wielding a rather broad brush.

  6. #6
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm not sure you can say all climate skeptics are not scientists. There are a vast array of skeptics, and varying degrees of skepticism, and you are wielding a rather broad brush.
    However, the amount of non-sceptic scientists is even vaster.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm not sure you can say all climate skeptics are not scientists. There are a vast array of skeptics, and varying degrees of skepticism, and you are wielding a rather broad brush.
    There are of course some climate sceptic scientists but they are a thin minority. Broadly the most vocal sceptics are not scientists and leap on anything that fits in the idea of there not being any climate change.

    EDIT: Found this after I wrote this message (and obviously earlier ones) case in point. From a UK political blogger Guido Fawkes:
    Fraudster boffins fiddle climate figures

    Bad news people: scientists have discovered that global warming didn’t stop in 1998 after all. The lack of statistically significant warming – often called the “pause” or “hiatus” – has long baffled climate scientists whose computer models are showing impending global warming doom.

    So, how did the top boffins at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration work out that everyone had been reading the thermometer wrong?

    They “corrected” the data by boosting the temperature readings from some ocean buoy recorders, upping ship-based temperature readings and raising land-based temperature readings. And just for good measure they adjusted the pre “pause” data downwards. If they were accountants, that would be called fraud…
    No scientific background whatsoever so any adjustments are dismissed as fraudulantly fitting an agenda, in order to fit the sceptics own agenda. Its inevitable.
    Last edited by RandBlade; 06-05-2015 at 07:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    There are of course some climate sceptic scientists but they are a thin minority. Broadly the most vocal sceptics are not scientists and leap on anything that fits in the idea of there not being any climate change.
    I realize that the words climate change skeptic carries some inherent baggage with them, but I doubt it would be too difficult to find scientists that are skeptical of many policy recommendations for climate change. Likewise I think it would also be fairly easy to find scientists who believe that the brunt of climate change could be managed through some fairly straightforward climate engineering. I'm also sure there are climate scientists who are wary of certain climate models, temperature gathering methodologies, and metrics.

    It is faulty to assume all climate change skeptics are the unwashed masses, and it is equally faulty to assume there is universal agreement and understanding of both the science, and the policy implications of climate change among climate scientists. Neither group is monolithic.

  9. #9
    I think its worth noting a difference between "climate change" and "policy recommendations for climate change". I think that climate change is happening, I think that many recommendations for climate change are bonkers. That's part of the problem for this debate - the notion the climate is unchangeable is silly, the notion that every proposal made needs to be unthinkingly adopted is equally silly. There is a wide gap in the middle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    It is faulty to assume all climate change skeptics are the unwashed masses, and it is equally faulty to assume there is universal agreement and understanding of both the science, and the policy implications of climate change among climate scientists. Neither group is monolithic.
    There is actually nearly universal understanding of the science. The policy implications is the area where there's disagreement (and policy is by definition political, not scientific).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    So apparently not only has there not been a hiatus, there's likely been a slight acceleration in warming in the last decade or so. I'm sure this is worth arguing about here, yes? Does anybody actually care? The Powers don't care all that much, clearly. Our political and economic systems (our biology, too?) discourage long term thinking, don't they? Who should care?
    IMO, most lay people don't pay too much attention when scientists tweak numbers by hundredths of degrees, or update tools for data collection or methodology, or write papers about a warming 'hiatus'. But I also think most people DO care how weather--and water--affects their lives....and want to connect the dots in ways they didn't even ten years ago. 'The Powers' also care, and mostly use short-term goals/gains because (like you said) our modern systems operate that way. But I think that's a cultural or societal phenomenon, rather than a biologically hard-wired human flaw.

    Pretty much everyone knows the planet is undergoing massive climate changes. Whether they watch ancient Arctic ice caps melt live on youtube (and want to save the polar bear), see Lake Meade shrink on GoogleEarth (and want to conserve CA water for drinking and agriculture), or know that drought contributed to civil wars in the middle east.....everyone knows.

  12. #12
    No evidence that droughts increase the chance of civil war. There was a whole special issue in a major journal that debunked this myth.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #13
    A whole special issue in a major journal?

  14. #14
    I forgot that GGT's standard of proof is "does GGT agree with it (on that specific day)".

    For anyone who's actually interested: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/49/1.toc The abstracts are pretty informative.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Fuck you, Loki.

    The abstracts aren't "informative" to most lay people. As I said, they're mostly concerned with how weather and water affects their own lives.

  16. #16
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    If you're unable to comprehend a simple abstract then I don't really know what you're supposed to contribute to this topic?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    If you're unable to comprehend a simple abstract then I don't really know what you're supposed to contribute to this topic?
    Ditto. The abstracts are remarkably free of technical language (as much as is feasible anyway).

    General gist: droughts (or rapid changes in rainfall) might make low-level conflict more frequent (i.e. the kind we see between small tribes in really undeveloped societies), but has no effect on civil war (a higher level of violence involving the government) or interstate conflict (low or high level). In several of the articles, there's not even a connection between droughts and any level of violence. There are more than a dozen articles by some of the top names in peace science. Those are some pretty conclusive results.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    This doesn't make any sense. Obama said that the oceans would stop their rise when he became prez!

  19. #19
    Yeah, and the Pope's encyclical says the planet is looking like an immense file of filth.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Ditto. The abstracts are remarkably free of technical language (as much as is feasible anyway).

    General gist: droughts (or rapid changes in rainfall) might make low-level conflict more frequent (i.e. the kind we see between small tribes in really undeveloped societies), but has no effect on civil war (a higher level of violence involving the government) or interstate conflict (low or high level). In several of the articles, there's not even a connection between droughts and any level of violence. There are more than a dozen articles by some of the top names in peace science. Those are some pretty conclusive results.
    Who are "top names in peace science"?

  21. #21
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I'm hoping that the author Slettebak who is one of those Loki linked to is one - that name is hilarious in Dutch.

    But GGT, have you bothered to read any of the abstracts? They're honestly not that difficult to read. The articles themselves probably do but that's what you get if you try to prove things scientifically.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I forgot that GGT's standard of proof is "does GGT agree with it (on that specific day)".

    For anyone who's actually interested: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/49/1.toc The abstracts are pretty informative.
    Since you probably have more complete access to the articles, do they discuss Syria? The notion of droughts being a major influence on armed conflicts (by triggering, hastening or worsening them) has recently entered the public consciousness through commentary on the civil war in Syria, commentary that was probably influenced by incautiously written and reported papers such as this one.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  23. #23
    That paper is written by climatologists who seem to simply assert things about conflict without knowing anything about it. The argument is: climate change made the drought more likely. Droughts are bad, mmkay. There's now a conflict in Syria, which is also bad. The conflict must be because of the drought.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That paper is written by climatologists who seem to simply assert things about conflict without knowing anything about it. The argument is: climate change made the drought more likely. Droughts are bad, mmkay. There's now a conflict in Syria, which is also bad. The conflict must be because of the drought.
    I know, I presented the paper as an explanation for where GGT's remark came from. The question to you was about whether or not any of the papers in that issue to which you linked had anything to say about what GGT was talking about
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  25. #25
    This is not how political science research works. One case provides some circumstantial evidence at best. You need to establish a much more systematic pattern before claiming that A causes B. And given how recently the Syrian conflict started, as well as the difficulty in accessing the country, it's unlikely that there will be credible Syria-specific studies in the near future. But that's like saying that we can't be sure about climate change as long as we can't measure climate change in Syria. Simply put, there's no convincing causal mechanism linking climate change or droughts to civil wars. At best, these kind of conditions might lead to more severe clashes between non-state actors, like the ones we see in South Sudan (not to say that those clashes are predominantly over the environment).

    Incidentally, articles like you one you posted is why I take any policy suggestions of climatologists with a pillar of salt.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    There is actually nearly universal understanding of the science. The policy implications is the area where there's disagreement (and policy is by definition political, not scientific).
    Which science? The greenhouse effect? You are talking about an incredibly intricate system, one which is not even close to being fully known. Even it it were, the world is hardly static. There are certainly elements that are better understood than others, but I think it would take a lot of hubris to claim universal or complete understanding of the science with a straight face - otherwise why are we still putting money into climate change studies?

  27. #27
    I don't think you understand how science works. We NEVER have a universal understanding how something works. Science is the method for improving our understanding of the world. Any theory that exists today can be falsified tomorrow. The question is whether the information we have today has been obtained using proper methods, and how strongly does that information point in a certain direction. If your version of science is perfection, then nothing is science. Using that standard, we shouldn't be doing anything at all, in any field. Even something like gravity can end up being based on some faulty premise that no one has thought of yet.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I don't think you understand how science works. We NEVER have a universal understanding how something works. Science is the method for improving our understanding of the world. Any theory that exists today can be falsified tomorrow. The question is whether the information we have today has been obtained using proper methods, and how strongly does that information point in a certain direction. If your version of science is perfection, then nothing is science. Using that standard, we shouldn't be doing anything at all, in any field. Even something like gravity can end up being based on some faulty premise that no one has thought of yet.
    I think you will find I was not the one claiming that there was nearly a universal understanding of the science. Nor did I claim science is perfection. Where the rest of your post comes from, I can not say.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    This is not how political science research works. One case provides some circumstantial evidence at best. You need to establish a much more systematic pattern before claiming that A causes B. And given how recently the Syrian conflict started, as well as the difficulty in accessing the country, it's unlikely that there will be credible Syria-specific studies in the near future. But that's like saying that we can't be sure about climate change as long as we can't measure climate change in Syria. Simply put, there's no convincing causal mechanism linking climate change or droughts to civil wars. At best, these kind of conditions might lead to more severe clashes between non-state actors, like the ones we see in South Sudan (not to say that those clashes are predominantly over the environment).

    Incidentally, articles like you one you posted is why I take any policy suggestions of climatologists with a pillar of salt.
    Oh for sod's sake, I understand that that is not how political science works, I was just curious and wondered if there was any research that had looked at the question in the context of the war in Syria. I take it your answer is no. Thank you. Jesus
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  30. #30
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Which science? The greenhouse effect? You are talking about an incredibly intricate system, one which is not even close to being fully known. Even it it were, the world is hardly static. There are certainly elements that are better understood than others, but I think it would take a lot of hubris to claim universal or complete understanding of the science with a straight face - otherwise why are we still putting money into climate change studies?
    The Greenhouse effect itself is pretty easy - shortwave IR goes in, is absorbed by the earth, then radiated as longwave IR, part of which happens to fall into the absorption bands of several gasses which heats the atmosphere until an equilibrium between radiation to and from the Earth is reached.

    And we're done.

    The complicated part you're alluding to is the prediction of what will happen where as a consequence of this.

    But that Greenhouse gasses lead to increased temperatures? That one is pretty much a given. Otherwise it'd be quite cold on the surface of Earth.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •