The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science 77

[rconnor]

----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

[ul][li]Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.[/li]
[li]Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)[/li]
[li]Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)[/li]
[li]Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).[/li]
[li]See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)[/li]
[li]Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .[/li][/ul]

None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

 

[beej67]

I know they're not cooling the planet.

The IPCC thinks that you cool the planet when you cut down trees.

That ain't right.

The most important point of my post, though, is that you cannot just point and say "But Correlation!" when arguing for CO2 reduction. Especially when you run into this pause stuff. I'll ask you straight up, rconnor, has CO2 stopped climbing through the last 15 years? Don't think so, but the temperature stopped climbing. So what sort of land use changes have happened over the last 15 years? Are land use changes more or less significant than in prior stretches of time? Your article (link for your 3% number) seems to indicate that over the last decade more people have moved to higher density areas in prior decades, thereby reducing their impact on land use footprint. If that's the case, could perhaps the land use part of the equation be undergoing a similar pause? Could perhaps land use correlate with warming better than CO2?

I'm just asking. The IPCC doesn't appear to be asking these sorts of questions, as near as I can tell. All the links you and I can brew up have to do with how land use affects carbon. They are single mindedly focusing on carbon.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Just a thought, but if more people moved to higher density areas, then we should expect land prices in less density areas to have fallen more while land prices in higher density areas should have risen.

That's economics. This can also be skewed if there was a population shift. But also if there was a population shift like this the urbon heat islands should have grown.

Now with the economic downturn with the rise of socialism in the US, the land prices should have had a general decrease, as the general population feels poorer.

 

[rconnor]

And each one assesses the data and arrives at conclusions based on their World View

So are we to assume that NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, JAXA, Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint National Academies (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and USA), the editors at Nature and Science, nearly every head of state from the richest, most powerful countries to the poorest and the vast majority of published climate scientists all share the same ideological bias that would alter their view of the data? And, on top of that, they’re all pushing the science from a position of self-interest?

Compare that to the Koch-founded libertarian think-tank, CATO, or the free-market enthusiasts at GWPF or the right-wing tabloids such as the Telegraph or the Daily Mail, which all share a very common ideological background.

This is not an appeal to consensus, as I’m not listing these organizations/people to demonstrate that climate science is right. I am listing these organizations/people to demonstrate the incredibly broad and wide ranging background and world view that supports the science behind climate change and the incredibly specific world view that rejects the science behind climate change. This highlights the fragility of your argument. While world view is central to the “skeptic” position, it appears irrelevant or mute to the “believer” position. This is because science, far more than any other institution, is less politically or ideologically driven.

Ironically, the claims that climate science is politically motivated are almost always made by people who are politically motivated to say that. See the latest Lamar Smith nonsense as a prime example. Smith said “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda” and now wants NOAA to release all emails related to Karl et al 2015 (see the Nature article). However, this is after:
[ul][li]NOAA’s data and methods are already publically available. Smith apparently cannot use Google.[/li]
[li]NOAA informed Smith of the data and methods. Smith apparently needed some help using Google.[/li]
[li]NOAA meet with Smith to go through the data and methods. Smith is apparently still confused.[/li]
[li]NOAA’s results are not significantly different than NASA, HadCRUT, JAXA, BEST (example). Is Smith going to subpoena NASA next?[/li]
[li]The results of Karl et al 2015 lowered long-term trends and only slightly increased short-term trends. If anything, it shows how flimsy and non-statistically significant the “pause” was in the first place. You might need a magnifying glass to spot the difference. That Smith’s imaginary grand fudging of the data.[/li]
[li]The “pause” never statistically existed in the first place (Cahill et al 2015, Foster and Abraham 2015, Rajaratnam et al 2015). It doesn’t surprise me that Smith is clinging to something that never actually existed.[/li][/ul]
It’s obvious, especially given Smith’s track record, that this has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the politics. The fact he’s wasting tax-payer dollars on these political-driven anti-science crusades should upset the right-wing voters. But they’re the same people cheering him on.

As I said before, climate change is not a left-wing versus right-wing debate. It’s a debate between the scientific evidence versus a ideologically-driven rejection of the science.

 

[IRstuff]

"Yet the IPCC says urban heat islands cool the planet."

Not sure where your "factoid" comes from, since it's patently opposite what IPCC says

pg. 325
Section 12.8 focuses more specifically on the co-benefits of mitigation options in human settlements, notably in terms of improved health, but also regarding quality of life (noise, urban heat island effect) and energy security and efficiency.

pg. 699
There are also several opportunities for heat island reduction, air quality improvement, and radiation management (geo-engineering) through building roofs and pavements, which constitute over 60 % of most urban surfaces and with co-benefits such as improved air quality (Ihara et al., 2008; Taha, 2008).

pg. 963
Design regulations can also be used to increase albedo or reduce urban heat island effects, through requiring light-coloured or green roofs or regulating impervious surfaces (Stone et al., 2012), as in Montreal and Toronto (Richardson and Otero, 2012).

pg. 975
Even an action like shading parking lots, which is generally thought of in the context of limiting the urban heat-island effect, can bring air pollution co-benefits through reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) and, thus, low-level ozone formation from parked vehicles (Scott et al., 1999).

pg. 977
The urban heat island (UHI) effect presents a major challenge to urban sustainability

So, it's pretty clear that IPCC's published position is that the heat island effect is detrimental and in no way beneficial.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

beej67, on top of what IRstuff has pointed out to you, please explain how urbanization has caused:
[ul][li]Rural temperatures to warm at about the same rate as overall warming, (BEST data)[/li]
[li]Glaciers and sea ice to melt,[/li]
[li]OHC to increase,[/li]
[li]The stratosphere to cool while warming the surface,[/li]
[li]A TOA radiative imbalance,[/li]
[li]...I could go on[/li][/ul]

Physical mechanism - we've got one, you don't. We've got science. You've got cognitive dissonance a hunch.

(You bringing up the "pause" as some silver bullet against the science in this thread is rich. Especially considering you've completely ignored discussing my detailed debunking of the "pause" up to this point.)

 

[beej67]

"Yet the IPCC says urban heat islands cool the planet."

Not sure where your "factoid" comes from, since it's patently opposite what IPCC says

AR5 8.3.5 says there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court, and land use changes during human population expansion which have defoliated half the planet have produced a net cooling effect.

beej67, on top of what IRstuff has pointed out to you, please explain how urbanization has caused:
Rural temperatures to warm at about the same rate as overall warming

convection

Glaciers and sea ice to melt,

convection

OHC to increase,

convection

The stratosphere to cool while warming the surface

Ironically, convection. Or, rather, lack of convection. The stratosphere doesn't mix with the troposphere because the temperature gradient is positive through the stratosphere. It's why there's no clouds up there. So obviously any additional heat added to the troposphere via surface effects from land use changes won't make it up to the stratosphere.

TOA radiative imbalance

This is the part where a tennis court and a forest have the same net effect on the climate, right?

I am in no way saying carbon isn't responsible for some of our AGW. I think it does. But in no way do I buy the idea that the massive, incredibly extensive terraforming that has accompanied the human population explosion has not only had no climate impact, but has had a significant net cooling impact. That's simply unbelievable. Yet that's what the IPCC is trying to sell, to try and inflate the relative warming effect of carbon.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

That's some magical concrete that's able to absorb all that heat! Let's do some quick math to see just how ridiculous this is. What would the forcing (W/m^2) of beej67's magical concrete have to be if urbanization was responsible for just 50% of the OHC increase from 2005-2014.

OHC increase from 2005-2014 x 50% = 10x10^22 J x 0.5 = 5X10^22 J
Convert to Watts = 5x10^22 / 283824000 = 1.76x10^14 W
Surface area of urban areas = % urban areas * surface area of Earth = 0.0087 * 510x10^12 = 4.4x10^12 m^2
Forcing of beej67's magical concrete = 1.76x10^14 / 4.4x10^12 = 40 W/m^2!!!!

That's ~40x more powerful than CO2 forcing (w/o feedbacks) and 17x more powerful than the IPCC radiative forcing estimate (2011 relative to 1750). And remember, that's only considering 50% of OHC and nothing else.

Beej67, it's obvious that you've been right all along. I humbly admit that I was wrong and your Magical Concrete Theory must be correct. I recommend you publish these findings immediately! Might I recommend trying the Journal of Perpetual Motion Machines.

(and I'm tired of showing you that the IPCC finds total land use albedo change to be very small (-0.15 +/- 0.1 W/m^2) and consider carbon released from land use changes (180 +/- 80 PgC, page 467) to be much more significant.)

 

[IRstuff]

"AR5 8.3.5 says there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court,"

Wow, in what universe does a tennis court stand in for an entire city?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

In the universe of the Magical Concrete Theory, where facts don't matter and anything is possible (...except for climate science being correct)!

 

[jhardy1]

@beej67:
You said:
AR5 8.3.5 says there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court, and land use changes during human population expansion which have defoliated half the planet have produced a net cooling effect.
You did not provide any support or interpretation for this claim, so I went and had a look for myself:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Firstly, there is not one reference in the AR5 document to "tennis court" that I could find (certainly not in Section 8.3.5) - surely you're not making stuff up, or twisting their words?

What I DID find is a rational discussion of the types of human-induced land cover change over the past millennia, and a discussion of both positive and negative impacts of land use change on multiple factors such as albedo (crop lands are generally lighter than forests, but some crops are darker than their native exposed soils), evapo-transpiration rates, surface roughness (which impacts local wind speeds), root depth (affects the water table depth), rainfall run-off rates, and so on.

The following extract from the conclusion (Section 8.3.5.6) sums up their assessment rather better than introducing spurious claims about forests and tennis courts:

There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo —is about as likely as not.

[Emphasis preserved from the AR5 source document.]

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[cranky108]

"about as likely as not." sort of sounds like it was not studied at any depth.

Interesting note about wind speeds, as I would have suspected. That removing trees tends to increase wind speeds. This was why in the past it was recommended that farmers line the edge of there fields with a buffer of trees. They no longer recommend that, and I have found no reference as to why. The reason for the buffer was to reduce wind errosion, and maybe to provide habitat for native wild life.

I suspect that the reason to stop recommending the tree buffer, was that this was only regionally needed, and was not popular outside the plains states.

Again, solutions should be directed at regions and not general solutions that don't work everywhere. But a big government does not think like that.

 

[moltenmetal]

No cranky, "as likely as not" simply means "even odds". You can study a coin flip as hard as you like and arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[jhardy1]

@cranky108:
"about as likely as not." sort of sounds like it was not studied at any depth.
I suggest you re-read the whole paragraph that I copied verbatim - or better still, go back to the link I gave

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

and read the whole of Section 8.3.5.

"As likely as not" means exactly what it says - some of the known impacts of land use change tend to increase surface temperature, while others tend to decrease surface temperature. Some of the models which try to account for as many combined factors as possible suggest a slight overall increase in surface temperature, while others predict a slight decrease in surface temperature, and as yet, there is no overall consensus (there's that word again!) as to whether the overall impact is positive or negative.

Does this mean that there is no correlation between land use change and surface temperature? Absolutely not! But all of the models suggest a smaller overall impact than the effects of CO2 etc. (And as far as I know, none of them say "there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court"!)

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[beej67]

Firstly, there is not one reference in the AR5 document to "tennis court" that I could find (certainly not in Section 8.3.5) - surely you're not making stuff up, or twisting their words?

All their albedo studies are based on the idea that land use only changes the color of the land cover, that being tied to reflectivity. Based on this idea that the color of the planet is all that matters for land use accounting, they have presumed that a green tree and a green tennis court are a net zero change in the climate. They further state that deforestation in areas where it might snow on occasion means that there's more snow on the ground to bounce more light back out, so deforestation cools the planet.

That's 8.3.4's line of reasoning.

It ain't right. You can't deforest half the planet and think that the ground where the deforestation occurred is going to get cooler.

There are many possible reasons why it isn't right. One is that forests create their own clouds through transpiration, and clouds bounce light back. Deforestation actually reduces cloud cover. (cloud cover btw is another huge hole in the science - they are very uncertain how cloud cover plays into everything) Another is that energy caught up in biological and hydrologic processes is energy not experienced as heat. Another is energy bound up in chemical bonds from biological processes becoming interned into the earth. There's probably a lot more than just that. Sooner or later the IPCC is going to figure this out. You can call me crazy, and fine, but one day when the science is finally settled I'm going to bump this thread. Massive global deforestation does not cool the surface of the planet. It simply doesn't. It doesn't help your CO2 issues either, but the raw climate forcing from deforestation is not to cool the planet.

There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo —is about as likely as not.

At its very best, this clearly states "the science is not settled." But that's not at all what the models are saying. All the models that everyone's hanging their hats on say deforestation is cooling the planet. See:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Now you tell me, is Bloomberg lying?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

So are you implying that black solar panels, are contributing to global warming, when they are placed anywhere except dark colored surfaces?

Bloomberg could be lying, but I do know he has an agenda, and I would not trust any story with his name on it as telling both sides of the story.

As far as IR light is concerned, I believe water is close to a black body. So one could conclude covering water with anything would be reducing warming.
I see no projects for that.

 

[rconnor]

Based on this idea that the color of the planet is all that matters for land use accounting, they have presumed that a green tree and a green tennis court are a net zero change in the climate.

Wrong. They don't assume a net zero change solely based off albedo; they factor in many different dimensions. Either actually read the report or, better yet, just listen to people that have actually read the report. Jhardy1 already explained this to you:

What I DID find is a rational discussion of the types of human-induced land cover change over the past millennia, and a discussion of both positive and negative impacts of land use change on multiple factors such as albedo (crop lands are generally lighter than forests, but some crops are darker than their native exposed soils), evapo-transpiration rates, surface roughness (which impacts local wind speeds), root depth (affects the water table depth), rainfall run-off rates, and so on.

One is that forests create their own clouds through transpiration

Not novel. The IPCC already discusses that, despite your claims they have "ignored it". Actually read the report.

Indeed, in addition to the impact on the surface albedo, land use change also modifies the evaporation and surface roughness, with counterbalancing consequences on the lower atmosphere temperature. There is increasing evidence that the impact of land use on evapotranspiration—a non-RF on climate—is comparable to, but of opposite sign than, the albedo effect, so that RF is not as useful a metric as it is for gases and aerosols. For instance, Findell et al. (2007) climate simulations show a negligible impact of land use change on the global mean temperature, although there are some significant regional changes.

…

Numerical climate experiments demonstrate that the impact of land use on climate is much more complex than just the RF. This is due in part to the very heterogeneous nature of land use change (Barnes and Roy, 2008), but mostly due to the impact on the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration, root depth and cloudiness (van der Molen et al., 2011). As a consequence, the forcing on climate is not purely radiative and the net impact on the surface temperature may be either positive or negative depending on the latitude (Bala et al., 2007).

Or

Additional regional effects that impact evapotranspiration trends are lengthening of the growing season and land use change.

Another is that energy caught up in biological and hydrologic processes is energy not experienced as heat. Another is energy bound up in chemical bonds from biological processes becoming interned into the earth.

Oh, you mean the fraction (% of total biomass reduced) of a fraction (% of “extra” energy absorb and not emitting back to space) of a fraction (% of “extra” energy now “available” in the “measurable climate” that wasn’t before) of 0.08% (% of the entire energy absorbed by photosynthesis) that we already discussed? It was wrong back then and I don’t believe physics has changed since that point.

[The IPCC assumes] paving over the entire planet in a carbon neutral fashion would cool us off.

Wrong from the beginning.

Urban areas have an albedo that is 0.01 to 0.02 smaller than adjacent croplands (Jin et al., 2005).

Deforestation has a direct impact on the atmospheric CO2 concentration and therefore contributes to the WMGHG RF as quantified in Section 8.3.2. Conversely, afforestation is a climate mitigation strategy to limit the CO2 concentration increase.

Pretty much everything you’ve said the IPCC said, is wrong. Either you haven’t actually read the report, you don’t understand the report or you’re purposefully misrepresenting the report (and possibly a combination thereof).

It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface—accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo—is about as likely as not.

At its very best, this clearly states "the science is not settled."

No, this clearly states that the net impact of land use changes is small, even at the lower and upper bounds of the uncertainty. Land use changes have had a small impact on climate change when compared to CO2 emissions. Your little hunch is wrong.

 

[rconnor]

So one could conclude covering water with anything would be reducing warming. I see no projects for that.

And those people that conclude that would be insane (or at the very least grossly ignorant). You see, there are these little things called phytoplankton that depend on solar energy and are kind of important to aquatic ecosystems. But let’s ignore the many obvious environmental issues with the project, how much would it cost?

Never mind a giant blanket over the ocean Cranky, how about we build a giant space mirror that reflects incoming sun light! I see no projects for that! Why? Well because the evil climate czars can’t profit off the construction of a giant space mirror! I think we’ve uncovered something here Cranky!

 

[jhardy1]

@beej67:

All the models that everyone's hanging their hats on say deforestation is cooling the planet. See:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warmi...

Now you tell me, is Bloomberg lying?

I'm not sure that a Bloomberg Business pictogram with a 3-sentence "grab" ("So If It's Not Nature, Is It Deforestation? Humans have cut, plowed and paved more than half the Earth's land surface. Dark forests are yielding to light patches, which reflect more sunlight - and have a slight cooling effect.") is really the best-credentialled way to summarise "all the models" on this issue!

And I think it's an absurd oversimplification to use this piece of popular media to make the claim that "all the models that everyone's hanging their hats on say ..."!!!

(And I still haven't seen a reference which equates forests and tennis courts.)

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[beej67]

I'm not sure that a Bloomberg Business pictogram with a 3-sentence "grab" ("So If It's Not Nature, Is It Deforestation? Humans have cut, plowed and paved more than half the Earth's land surface. Dark forests are yielding to light patches, which reflect more sunlight - and have a slight cooling effect.") is really the best-credentialled way to summarise "all the models" on this issue!

from the link:

Methodology
NASA's Model

Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.

The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.

A Global Research Project

GISS produced the results shown here in 2012, as part of its contribution to an international climate-science research initiative called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase Five. Let's just call it "Phase-5." ...

These things are what's driving policy.

You cannot insulate yourself from the obligation to form determinate, predictive models with language like this:

There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo —is about as likely as not.

...and then turn around and use those models to support policies like this:

In the United States, the necessary cuts for 2°C would require policies exponentially more ambitious than anything the Obama administration has been doing through the Environmental Protection Agency. An "equity" approach would require getting to zero carbon by 2040 — just 25 years. We'd be talking about World War II–style mobilization. Congress would likely need to get involved, either by enacting carbon pricing or other policies to massively scale up zero-carbon energy.

We must get the modeling right first. And by "right," I mean the models must be predictive. The most important lesson to learn from the pause is that the models were not predictive, even when the IPCC guaranteed to us that they were.

The fact that the "most likely range" for ECS keeps getting wider and wider with each AR release, instead of getting narrower and narrower, means that the science is not good enough yet to support the policy that the models claim is required. And that's all there is to it.

I patiently await better science. I'm happy to see as much money as possible thrown at that science.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[SkipVought]

I'm just a guy, sitting in my sun room, reading the news and sipping my favorite adult beverage: peach tea.

Over the past 40-50 years I have been interested, amused and angered at the AGC/AGW controversary: amused at the changes in the direction of the winds and angered at the excuses made to waste my money, tilting at windmills.

So today I ran across this article that seems to fit in some way, to this thread's topic. At least the "pause" is mentioned.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

Enjoy!

Skip,
[sub]
Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance![/sub]