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…

 

[SkipVought]

Even if there were consensus on what the data means, then the other questions sill linger.

And, yes, I do strongly doubt the Neo-Darwinian Evolution consensus. I doubt that life came from non-life, that intelligence came from non-intelligence. I see that data and have a different conclusion. Take a look a Thomas Nagle, "Mind and Cosmos."

So consensus doesn't carry the weight for me. Consensus can be manipulated. I can think of several consensus movements that had dire historical consequences.

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

 

[beej67]

To think those sensationalized puff pieces are what’s crafting policy is nonsense.

I quoted the head of the NASA Goddard Space Center while he was on a trip to Europe specifically to influence policy, and you're recasting my quote as a sensationalized puff piece.

That did just happen.

You know what else just happened? Bernie Sanders, the guy in the lead for the Democratic nomination, claimed that Global Warming causes terrorism.

Yes, rconnor. These puff pieces are clearly influencing policy. It's not a straw man, no matter how much you wish it was.

Europe has been quite aggressive thus far in reducing emissions. Did they do so under the enacting of “martial law”? No.

By "quite aggressive," do you mean "not even a shred as aggressive as would be necessary to avoid global catastrophe according to many scientists" ..?



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

and hasn't Europe, or Germany at least, stepped back from their CC programs ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

"You know what else just happened? Bernie Sanders, the guy in the lead for the Democratic nomination, claimed that Global Warming causes terrorism."

So, instead of "puff" pieces use "puff" titles. I'm guessing this is the internet equivalent of Fox News, since the very first sentence of the article, which apparently even the author didn't read, says that Sanders said, "climate change will lead to terrorism" "Will lead to" is a far cry from "causes," namely many decades in the future, as opposed to NOW.

One could certainly mount a much more nuanced and possibly plausible argument about whether the premise is even true, but that wouldn't have succeeded in derailing the basic discussion, nor would it have people quoting the title without reading the article. While drought and famine have historically lead to war with neighbors with plentiful food or water, one might suspect that even neighbors will be so poorly off that there wouldn't be much point in instigating a local war. More plausibly, a country like Venezuela might eye Argentina as an invasion target, but there wouldn't be much point in mounting terrorism campaigns, since that won't lead to any sort of successful invasion of, nor foreign aid from, Argentina. The only terrorism would be a prelude to an actual invasion, to "soften" the opposing side's populace, but even then, it would be more along the lines of "slash and burn" tactics that eventually led to the fall of Rome. Even then, Venezuela would need to march two other countries and fight their respective armies before reaching its goal, and very likely, Brazil might have the same goal. This scenario doesn't get well served by terrorism. Now, Argentina might instigate terrorism in Venezuela to dissuade them from mounting the invasion. But, I don't think that's what Sanders had in mind.

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, the science and economic impacts behind Hansen’s statements is what drives policy. The sensationalize descriptors he sometimes uses are irrelevant packaging. What matters to policy is the economic impact of climate change, not what adjective one puts in front of them. Again, he’s not objectively wrong (what he says are possible outcomes supported by the science), I just feel he’s over-the-top in his choice of descriptors.

Unlike you, who is flat out making stuff up. All of this stems from a news piece that was trying to say 2 deg C is likely not a practical limit (which I agree with) and you twisting it, due to your own ignorance on the subject, to say the government will enact “martial law” to keep below 2 deg C. You keep doubling down on this (in an equally stubborn fashion to your land use change hunches) but you have nothing to support the “martial law” you keep talking about (just like your land use change hunches). Nothing. Look through IPCC RCP scenarios and see what they state is the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. See anything that resembles “martial law”? Read AR5 WG2 and WG3. See anything that resembles “martial law”? Heard any suggestions that enacting “martial law” will be a likely outcome from COP21 (…from a non-crazy source)?

Beyond that, you’re oblivious to the to the irony of attacking Hansen from being “alarmist” (and I will say that he sometimes is!) while lying about mitigation strategies in an attempt to scare people away from pursuing them.

To call an X meter rise in sea level “dooms day” or “lead to economic, political, social and ethical difficulties” is simply a choice of diction (sensationalized versus non-sensationalized). But to say mitigation measures involve “enacting martial law” or “revenue neutral carbon taxes, increased energy efficiency, etc.” is beyond a choice of diction; it’s the difference between fear-mongering falsehoods and reality.

rb1957, I don’t see how that’s relevant to my point (which was mitigation measures do not equate to enacting “martial law”). Furthermore, it’s not like Germany has abandoned all mitigation measures, they’ve simply revised them. While this isn’t a positive step, if anything, it speaks to my concern that political and social inertia will limit the pace of policy, not the actual sensitivity value.

 

[rconnor]

SkipVought,

Even if there were consensus on what the data means, then the other questions sill linger.

[ul][li]Question 1 is clearly between negative and very negative without mitigation and the cost/benefit ranges from positive to very positive with mitigation.[/li]
[li]Question 2 is about as settled as sciences gets. It’s us.[/li]
[li]Question 3 is answered in question 1.[/li]
[li]Question 4 is a value judgment question. If we agree reducing hardships across the globe and increasing cost/benefit is something we want, then the answer is “yes”.[/li]
[li]Question 5 is the important one. There’s a lot of discussion that is required. Just “martial law” is not on anyone’s table (other than the fictitious table in beej67’s mind).[/li][/ul]

I can think of several consensus movements that had dire historical consequences.

Those answers aren’t derive from a consensus itself, they’re derived from the body scientific evidence (for questions 1-3; 4 and 5 are value judgment questions).

And I’ll repeat this quote (my bold):

It is not enough to wear the mantel of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.

And, yes, I do strongly doubt the Neo-Darwinian Evolution consensus. I doubt that life came from non-life, that intelligence came from non-intelligence. I see that data and have a different conclusion. Take a look a Thomas Nagle, "Mind and Cosmos."

Incidentally you’ve touched on another interest of mine. I know it’s rather off-topic (and I hope we don’t drag others into it) but you’ve sparked my curiosity (and, heck, it’s my thread!). It appears we not only come from different schools of thought on climate science but also on consciousness/evolution (but it’s likely the latter disagreement would result in much more enjoyable exchange).

I disagree with Nagel and cannot see how his view on the mind is not repackaged dualism. I see much of his philosophy as “neuroscience cannot account for this [ex. qualia] at this point in time, therefore consciousness must not be fully explainable in a physical sense”. It seems to require the immaterial effecting the material, in some capacity, to make sense of his ideas, which violates nearly every law of science. Or, at the very least, he gives the mind special privileges over the laws of science. See this section of a talk from physicist Sean Carroll that perfectly illustrates the inescapable incompatibility of dualism with modern science.

Nagel's views on evolution are, to me, indistinguishable from intelligent design (just without a god being at the head). Again, his argument appears to be "science has not developed a mechanism for the transition from non-life to life at this point in time, therefore life must be some special [read: magical] property." To me, they stem from anthropocentrism, which is a common trap. I enjoy reading Nagel, he’s got some interesting ideas but I don’t think they can be salvaged from those pitfalls.

As may not be surprising, I am a materialist through and through (I’m in the Daniel Dennett camp, just finishing up a re-read of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea actually). I digress and will leave that there but I’d welcome any follow up comments you’d like to make though.

 

[beej67]

To call an X meter rise in sea level “dooms day” or “lead to economic, political, social and ethical difficulties” is simply a choice of diction (sensationalized versus non-sensationalized). But to say mitigation measures involve “enacting martial law” or “revenue neutral carbon taxes, increased energy efficiency, etc.” is beyond a choice of diction; it’s the difference between fear-mongering falsehoods and reality.

It's not merely a choice of diction because "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency" will not avert enough global warming to matter. There is a disconnect between policy and efficacy according to the science, even if the science was settled, which it isn't.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

There is a disconnect between policy and efficacy according to the science

Much of what you’re saying here seems to be suggesting that mitigation policies, to date, have not been as aggressive as what the science says they should be. I would agree. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that disagreed.

However, to then go and think that what the science says it should be is “martial law”, is just you flat out making stuff up. I gave you a suggestion that will help you understand what the science says we should be looking at. While the IPCC very specifically does not promote any kind of policy, it has set up various possible future emission scenarios based off various levels of mitigation measures. Look at the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 and you will begin to educate yourself on some of the measures that are being discussed.

There have been a few (more accurately, too few) positive steps in mitigation efforts but nothing close to what we should be doing. The science has been sending a consistent message to policy makers for decades now (50 years since the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson and over a century since Arrhenius 1896) (and no, Global Cooling was not the scientific message in the 70’s) but we’ve had very little action. The more evidence that comes in, the more difficult it is for people to have a rational, scientifically-defensible argument against supporting for mitigation measures. But that won’t stop them from spewing an ideologically driven argument (that, more and more, can be distilled done to “I don’t believe that science because taxes/government”, see cranky108’s post at 2 Nov 15 20:22 as a perfect and succinct example).

To that point, when I wrote my opening posts, I only had temperature data up to August 2015. NASA just released October 2015 data. Lamar Smith might be needing to subpoena NASA as well, which had a higher Oct 2015 anomaly than NOAA. He should also be looking into the Obama Administration's corrupting influence on the Japan Meteorological Agency. Just how far does this conspiracy of NOAA's publically available data and methods go!

 

[rb1957]

to be fair (?) the NOAA haven't released their data (I hope they collect more than one data point !) they've released their distilled "manipulated" "data"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

What? Not true. [link ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/]It[/url] is all there. Input data, methods and final results.

That Smith cannot understand it is neither surprising nor NOAA's fault.

 

[rb1957]

from the wiki article on Arrhenius you can see the antagonism started at the beginning ... Angstrom "criticised" his conclusions, and "Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[beej67]

Much of what you’re saying here seems to be suggesting that mitigation policies, to date, have not been as aggressive as what the science says they should be. I would agree. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that disagreed.

However, to then go and think that what the science says it should be is “martial law”, is just you flat out making stuff up.

You claiming "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency" would arrest global warming is making stuff up. And every time I try to get you to outlay what policies you'd like to suggest to arrest global warming, you move the goalposts to "well, we have to do whatever we can," which is a BS response, because you're removing the goalposts entirely! Policy is about ROI. About weighing options on your investment and identifying the real, measurable return of each of the options weighed. Identify the problem, identify a way to measure the problem, and spend your money in such a way that it most measurably affects that problem.

And "global warming" is not the problem. Mass extinction might be the problem. Damage to coastal areas might be the problem. Drought might be the problem, although I'd contend that a warmer planet also has more rain. You have to identify the 'bad stuff' and do something to break one of the links in the chain to the bad stuff.

I think the problem is mass extinction. I've demonstrated clearly, with math, that the amount of money thrown at Obama's most recent power plant initiative could permanently reserve a rain forest area the size of Honduras. I've further demonstrated that that same power plant initiative would do nothing to arrest global warming. So this is a problem for you, whether you like it or not. It's a clear demonstration that the juice is not worth the squeeze.

In the past 125 years, the globe has warmed 0.8 degrees, which is a difference of about 150 miles south as the crow flies. Yeah that's terrible and all, but it's effectively meaningless to the mass extinction problem, and it's not causing terrorism either. And if the globe warms another 0.8 degrees over the next 125 years, it's not going to cause any more terrorism and it's not going to cause any more extinction. But the amount of money and effort you'd have to spend to fully avert that 0.8 degrees is simply ridiculous.

But back to your proposed policy. How much warming do you think you're going to avert with "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency"? Show me the math on that. And then show me the math on the relative sea level difference between that case, and a baseline case of "business as usual." The difference will be jack squat. Couple of inches per century. Not worth the squeeze. Let's spend that giant pile of cash preserving habitat and building leveys.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

You claiming "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency" would arrest global warming is making stuff up.

Please remind me where I said revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency alone would arrest (all?) global warming. Or are you, once again, twisting other peoples words?

There’s a vast difference between listing a series of mitigation measures (ending with “etc.”) as examples of actual proposed mitigation measures (in contrast to scare tactic examples that are blatantly untrue), which I did, and saying “revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency would arrest [all?] global warming”, which was your made up misrepresentation. Please try to engage in this discussion honestly.

And every time I try to get you to outlay what policies you'd like to suggest to arrest global warming, you move the goalposts to "well, we have to do whatever we can," which is a BS response, because you're removing the goalposts entirely! Policy is about ROI. About weighing options on your investment and identifying the real, measurable return of each of the options weighed. Identify the problem, identify a way to measure the problem, and spend your money in such a way that it most measurably affects that problem.

No, I believe my response was suggesting you read the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, WGII and WGIII to develop an understanding behind the methods and ROI of mitigation strategies. Again, please try to engage in this discussion honestly.

WGIII is likely the best source for information. Or this or this. Given your track record of reading and understanding IPCC reports, I’m not confident it will be helpful to you though.

And "global warming" is not the problem. Mass extinction might be the problem. Damage to coastal areas might be the problem. Drought might be the problem

And? What causes those issues? Global warming (read WGII). (note: as we’ve said to you about a half dozen times now (and I really hope has finally set in), reductions in deforestation are an integral part of mitigation. So the extinction caused by loss of habitat will also be reduced by combating climate change).

although I'd contend that a warmer planet also has more rain.

Another hunch? Read the science. In a nutshell, dryer areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter.

I think the problem is mass extinction.

Ok. The worst mass extinction events in the Earth’s history have been a result of geologically rapid climate change. So the pace of anthropogenic climate change should really have you worried about mass extinction.

I've further demonstrated that that same power plant initiative would do nothing to arrest global warming.

I sure hope you’re not referring to that CATO blog post again. Firstly, The Clean Power Act was never designed to “arrest global warming”. Again, please try to engage in this discussion honestly. Secondly, the CATO blog post was incredibly flawed. As I stated to you before in a past thread:

Thirdly, you've inexplicable failed to notice that EPA's Clean Power Plan has estimates up to 2030 and, instead, argued about 2100. Again, have you read the reports? The Plan estimates ~550 MtCO2 savings in 2030. This represents 19% of the difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2030. This is not cooking the books, this is you failing to read. Again to argue that this will also mean 550 MtCO2 in 2100 is wrong because the baseline would continue to increase, hence the Clean Power Plan would have much higher savings in 2100.

So basically the CATO analysis shows that the difference between the “base line” and the “base line” minus 550 MtCO2 is minor in 2100. That is likely true. However, they spun it to trick people to think that this represents the difference between the “base line” and the “base line” plus the Clean Power Act. That is absolutely not what their analysis is doing. That is why you don’t go to some ideologically driven, Koch Brothers founded (the "o" in "founded" is not a typo) libertarian think-tank for quality scientific analysis.

In the past 125 years, the globe has warmed 0.8 degrees, which is a difference of about 150 miles south as the crow flies.

This is one of the silliest arguments I hear. It follows the same logical fallacy as “diurnal temperature differences can be 20 deg C” or “the difference between winter lows (-40 deg C) and summer highs (+40 deg C) can be 80 deg C (using numbers from my location), therefore a 2 deg C change in global temperatures is meaningless”. Both your statement and those statements completely ignore the fact that the planet is sensitivity to changes in global temperature averages.

The difference between the last glaciations period and the current interglacial period was ~5 deg C. Past changes of around 5 deg C was the difference in 25 meters in sea level rise in the past (now, we don’t have that much ice to melt, so sea level rise will not be above 12 m, likely). Past change of around 5 deg C involves a mass change in the biosphere and involves mass extinctions. And the last 5 deg C rise occurred over a period of ~15,000 years. That’s 0.03 deg C per century. We are hoping to stay below 2 deg C before the end of the century (current rate is about 1.7 deg C per century). Remember when I told ornerynorsk that “it’s changed before” is a really, really bad argument against mitigation. Ya, that’s another reason why.

How much warming do you think you're going to avert with "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency"? Show me the math on that. And then show me the math on the relative sea level difference between that case, and a baseline case of "business as usual."

Not all of it, that’s for sure. That’s because those aren’t the only two measures we need. I’ve tried to, unsuccessfully, refer you to WGIII about 4 times now. Examples of possible measures and the their economic impacts are discussed.

I think the most important point comes from paleoclimatology. The difference between ice ages and interglacial periods is around the same as our “business as usual” case. The cause of those changes were changes in atmospheric CO2 levels, just like today. The difference is those past changes occurred over tens of thousands of years (and still had dramatic impacts on the biosphere). We are talking about those same changes occurring over centuries. You’re fooling yourself if you think this isn’t a problem. You’re fooling yourself if you think that mitigation is a waste of money.

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, you may want to read this for more (updated) context on the Lamar Smith nonsense.

 

[rconnor]

For even more context, see the newest “”pause” buster” study. Note it uses GISS data. That makes six papers demonstrating the lack of a “pause” - 1 (uses GISS), 2 (the evil Karl et al…that also compares against GISS, HadCRUT and Cowtan and Way), 3 (uses GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT, and Cowtan and Way), 4 (uses GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT), 5 (uses GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT and Cowtan and Way), and now 6 (uses GISS).

Note that none of these papers solely rely on NOAA data (not even Karl et al 2015!) and they all show the same thing (using different data sets) – there is no statistical evidence that the “pause” existed in the first place. Yet Smith STILL believes that NOAA somehow tampered with the data for political reasons, [ul][li]despite never providing any evidence of what the tampering might be (he doesn’t have the foggiest idea about the science),[/li]
[li]despite the fact that the time line shows his accusation of rushing the paper to publication to align with political action is completely false,[/li]
[li]despite the fact that the input data, methods and results are freely available online (and always were),[/li]
[li]despite the fact that NOAA sent scientists to meet with Smith and discuss the methods (he needs all the help he can get),[/li]
[li]despite the fact that NOAA’s data set is consistent with other major data sets,[/li]
[li]despite the fact that Karl et al’s conclusions are consistent with numerous other peer-reviewed studies, that use different data sets and[/li]
[li]despite the fact that 2015 temperatures, even using v.3 data, completely eliminate any remaining chance that the "pause" might still exist.[/li][/ul]

I cannot belief Lamar Smith is so dumb as to not understand that his allegations have no merit (and that’s saying something!). It’s very likely he is well aware that his baseless investigation is nothing more than a political-motivated witch hunt but he nevertheless feels it is his job to go on political-motivated witch hunts (while using tax payer dollars and seriously damaging the relationship between the scientific community and congress). Frankly, I’d be more sympathetic to Smith if he just came out and stated that there is no factual basis, just pure political motivation, behind the investigation like the Republicans (essentially) did with the Benghazi panel.

 

[rb1957]

then I guess (hope?) that answers your original question for this thread ... if no pause then no need to talk about it ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

I would hope that would be the case as well. Does that mean Lamar Smith will make a public statement apologizing for his borderline libelous statements to NOAA scientists? Does this mean posters here will stop using the “pause” as an argument against mitigation measures? I’m rather doubtful.

I think this speaks to a much larger point in this discussion. Numerous posters were more than happy to use the “pause” as an argument in previous posts. However, once counter-evidence is brought forth against that viewpoint, they all the sudden become quiet or attempt to shut down the conversation as “pointless”. People are more than happy to shout out opinions but no so willing to defend them.

This might not be such a big deal if it weren’t for the real-world implications of such uninformed opinions. Ignorance and indifference towards mitigation policies is a harmless combination but ignorance and fervent attacks against mitigation measure is a very harmful combination. And yes, the combination of ignorance and fervent support of mitigation measures can be dangerous as well (I recently put off a group of my friends, who could be classed as quite hard line environmentalists, because I questioned their position of holding such strong opinions despite having little knowledge on the science behind the issue). We need informed opinions on the matter, not ideologically-driven opinions.

Now, I don’t expect that people will become informed by reading my posts; I think they need to search that information out on their own. I’m merely trying to point them in that direction. But to think that you’ll get better, more objective, information from places like WUWT, CATO, Breitbart, etc. than NASA, PNAS, Nature is simply wrong. At the end of the day, this has been the running theme of my posts.

 

[beej67]

Please remind me where I said revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency alone would arrest (all?) global warming.

Please remind me where you have advocated any policy that would significantly reduce global warming. The efficacy of policy is the whole point, sir. Your first link in your most recent post advocates establishing an elaborate global carbon trading scheme that Goldman Sachs can pump-and-dump like they did the mortgaged backed securities market, or any other derivative investment they like. Goldman stockholders sure would love that, but it's not going to fix anything. Your second link is to a "but guys! build more solar panels!" report, which we all know won't work. If you want to shift the grid off carbon you have to go nuclear in a massive way. (which I don't mind, btw)

And? What causes those issues? Global warming

Holy crap, mass extinction is NOT CAUSED BY A HALF DEGREE A CENTURY TEMPERATURE RISE! It's caused by 50% of the world's habitat disappearing, by overharvesting of the world's oceans, by toxic pollution (not CO2), and by increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens. In short, it's caused by human population expansion, not by an increase in mean surface temperature barely noticeable by generation. It correlates with GW because GW also correlates with human population expansion.

Another hunch? Read the science. In a nutshell, dryer areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter.

A warmer planet has more total rain, period. If some areas get dryer because of local weather pattern changes, then that's a local issue. Cloud formation is caused by the pseudoadiabatic lifting of moist air parcels, and a warmer planet has A) more moist air, and B) more convection. Sorry, science on that is clear. A frozen planet would have the least possible precipitation, a tropical planet would have the most.

Ok. The worst mass extinction events in the Earth’s history have been a result of geologically rapid climate change.

Cooling. They were a result of geologically rapid cooling. Not warming. Cooling. All of them but this one.

But we don't even know that for a fact either! All we know is that there is a correlation between mass extinction and ice ages. We don't know for sure whether the extinction was caused by the ice ages, or the ice ages were caused by (land cover changes associated with) the extinction, or a third thing (comet bombardment?) caused them both. You climate people have a real problem with causation.

The only one we know for sure about is this one. The one that we're already in. The one that has been caused, we know for a fact, by mankind's disregard for the principles of natural conservation. Not by half a degree warming.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Please remind me where you have advocated any policy that would significantly reduce global warming.

When talking with people that understand the science, discussing the different mitigation policies is an interesting and important topic (to me, it’s where the conversation should be at this point). However, when talking with people that either misunderstand or are uninformed about the science, then discussing mitigation policies is a waste of time – the science has to come first. My area of focus here has always been on the science behind climate change, to those that don’t have a great understanding of it, in an attempt to demonstrate that mitigation measures are required. Talking about mitigation policies with someone how thinks land use change is primarily responsible for climate change and climate change won’t be bad is simply pointless.

Now, I understand why many of you are so interested in discussing policy prior to understanding the science. You’ve looked at the proposed mitigation policies (or in your case beej67, completely made up what they might be), don’t like them for ideological reasons and have then decided the science must be wrong. So bashing mitigation policies for ideological reasons, which are completely inconsistent with the science, is enjoyable to some. However, for me to engage in a conversation on mitigation policies with those people is a little bit like playing chess with a pigeon…

But against my better judgment, I will describe my views in a nut shell. I feel mitigation measures need to look at moving energy generation is as close to fully renewable as practically possible and I feel that nuclear shouldn’t be completely disregarded as a part of this. Aforestation, or at least significant reductions in deforestation, will also be extremely important. I’m unconvinced that artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a practical option (hence why I feel it’s important to reduce emissions as soon as possible). Revenue neutral carbon taxes appear to be an effective method in reducing emission growth in the short term, but of course is not the panacea, and could support the shift in energy generation. Tariffs on imports from non-participating countries would help encourage participation. Allowances from underdeveloped nations need to be taken into account, which is an important political, economic and ethical discussion. Then upgrading the grid to support a transition to mainly electric transportation is the next step. Going to electric transportation while we still generate from coal is pointless; in fact, a study I read showed that on average in the US hybrid vehicles have fewer emissions/km than fully electric vehicles. The opposite is true in areas that generate primarily from non-coal sources.

The exact how and when is an ongoing discussion but to say it’s impossible is just plain wrong. Frankly, to say it’s impossible is contradictory for “skeptics” that say we can adapt are way out of anything. If you believe human ingenuity will allow us to solve all problems with adaptation, then we can certainly solve the problems of mitigation. I actually agree with both (to an extent), the difference is in the cost – both financial and ethical. Here the science says again and again that mitigation will be much more cost effective (in both terms) than adaptation. However, when one side continually ignores the cost of adaptation, hyperbolizes the cost of mitigation, and misunderstands and over plays the “better” end of uncertainty while ignoring the “worse” end then such conversations are pointless. Hence my original point about chess with a pigeon.

Holy crap, mass extinction is NOT CAUSED BY A HALF DEGREE A CENTURY TEMPERATURE RISE! It's caused by 50% of the world's habitat disappearing, by overharvesting of the world's oceans, by toxic pollution (not CO2), and by increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens.

Firstly, we’ve just recently eclipsed the 1 deg C mark over pre-industrial temperatures, so your caps lock “HALF DEGREE” is outdated. Secondly, our current long term rate of warming is 1.7 deg C per century, so your caps lock “HALF DEGREE A CENTURY” is wrong.

Returning to your original point, if you are talking about extinctions up to this point, then I agree with you. Up to this point, impacts on ecosystems caused by global warming has been smaller than the impact of anthropogenic land use changes. I thought we were talking about extinctions into the future, in which case global warming will likely be more impactful than land-use change. Furthermore, up to this point we haven't had what could be classed as a "mass extinction event" comparable to past events. Into the future, it's very likely we will. However, as I’ve repeatedly said to you, I completely agree with you that land-use changes and pollution are extremely important environmental concerns. What you seem to fail to understand is that solutions to those problems are intrinsic to combating climate change.

Interestingly, your comment on “increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens” is another reason why global warming will be very bad. Pathogens love warmth and will benefit from global warming, much to our loss. Furthermore, as species are forced to migrate due to changes in the biosphere, you will have massive shifts in the ecological equilibrium as the biosphere struggles to handle the shifts.

A warmer planet has more total rain, period.

This is overly simplistic. As I said, read the science. Here are two examples.

Cooling. [Past mass extinctions] were a result of geologically rapid cooling. Not warming. Cooling.

This is just so utterly incorrect. Some past mass extinction events were caused by cooling but others, including many of the biggest ones, where caused by warming.

The Permian event (96% loss of species) was caused by increased volcanism (elevated H2S and CO2 levels) which lead to global warming, not cooling. The Triassic event (80% loss of species) was caused by activity in the Central Atlantic Magmatic which increased CO2 levels which lead to global warming, not cooling (and calcification in the world oceans). More importantly, both global cooling and global warming extinctions are intrinsically tied to CO2 concentrations. Mass extinction caused by warming – CO2 levels were rising. Mass extinction caused by cooling – CO2 levels were failing. (source, 2, 3)

***KEY POINT***Oh and by the way, the Permian event, the one that killed off 96% of all species on the planet, involved an 8 deg C rise in temperatures and CO2 concentrations to rise to 2000 ppm, which occurred over a period of 60,000 years (source). To put this in perspective, RCP8.5 (which is close to the “do nothing” option) projects a temperature rise of 4.31 deg C above pre-industrial (1850-1900 average) or 3.7 deg C above the 1986-2005 average by 2100 and projects CO2 concentrations will reach 2000 ppm by 2250 (source). Now, I’m not saying that every and all of the 96% of lost species during the Permian event were caused by global warming alone, as numerous other factors likely played into some of the extinctions. But the repeated relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature and changes in temperature and extinctions demonstrates that rapid changes in climate result in extinctions (1, 2). I'm also not saying the “Anthropocean event” will result in the loss of 96% of all species but it will cause a significant disruption to the biosphere that will result in some level of mass extinction. To say “mass extinction is NOT CAUSED BY A HALF DEGREE A CENTURY TEMPERATURE RISE” is simply contrary to the evidence (especially when we are warming much faster than “HALF A DEGREE A CENTURY”).

This returns us to one of the central points of my last post to beej67, which he tellingly did not comment on. Beyond the fact that past mass extinctions are tied to temperatures and CO2 concentrations (both cooling/lowering and warming/rising), the rate of temperature change during past mass extinction events is orders of magnitude slower than current changes. To claim that “it won’t be bad” (it meaning warming rates >1.5 deg C/century) is completely contradicted by the fact that past periods of geological rapid warming (of <0.05 deg C per century) have lead to massively negative consequences in the biosphere. While “It won’t be bad” and “it’s changed before” are both common “skeptic” arguments against mitigation, the former is completely negated by the latter and the latter negates the argument it was trying to support.***KEY POINT***

 

[someguy79]

Come on people! Isn't this supposed to be a forum for reasoned debate? It's not for shouting and name calling, right?

Dial down the drama if you want anyone to really consider what you're writing. If someone isn't convinced by a good explanation and evidence, you're not likely to make any more progress by attacking his/her position.