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…

 

[ornerynorsk]

There is a daytime soap opera somewhere in all of this . . . . Climate change and the drama that encompasses it is the new adultery.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

For many of us, it's not that you want to do something, it's that you want to follow the recommendations (demands) of progressive lawmakers.

We disagree with that on many levels, so are we to be ignored, or worse discredited, like the UN suggests?

So there it is, we want to know where these conclusions came from, and how they are justified. And if we disagree we want our say on alternitives.

So where are the alternitives? Without any to evaluate we can only conclude we are being railroaded (our rights are being taken away for some political gain).

And what examples are we being offered? The carbon king Al Gore? The jet sets in Washington or Brussels?

 

[rb1957]

"More importantly, the second part is wrong in face of the relevant information on the subject. In the analogy, every shred of medical science suggests that exercising and eating healthy is beneficial and reduces the risk and extent of future ailments." ... clearly you haven't seen much of the world where diet is bad and the consequences are obvious. maybe many haven't seen their doctor about it, or see a doctor?, but I doubt that'd change much. Surviving a heart attack may (May) provide incentive ...



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

 

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...rs-demand-trillions-in-climate-loot-from-west

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

clearly you haven't seen much of the world where diet is bad and the consequences are obvious. maybe many haven't seen their doctor about it, or see a doctor?, but I doubt that'd change much. Surviving a heart attack may (May) provide incentive ...

So your saying that bad diet is obviously responsible for some negative health effects, or am I misrepresenting this quote? How is this not supporting what I (and IRstuff) have been saying?

Let’s back up a second. You are using the analogy of a doctor saying “if you continue with your poor diet and lack of exercise, you’ll likely die early” to stand for climate scientists saying “if we continue our CO2 emission path, we’ll likely face economic, political and ethical hardships related to climate change in the future.” I agree this is a fair analogy.

Then you imply that doctors cannot predict exactly when you’ll die and of what is analogous to climate scientists cannot predict the exact $ value of the damages. Again, I don’t disagree with this at face-value. However, it is an inaccurate representation of what climate scientists (and doctors) are trying to do.

Where the point of contention comes in, which IRstuff has done a great job of highlighting, is the extension of the analogy which concludes, (not your words) “because doctor’s cannot tell me exactly when I’ll die and of what, I see no reason to change my poor diet and lack of exercise.” This is absurd logic but is directly analogous to the “do nothing” option you are support in climate change mitigation, which emphasizes the absurd logic there. If you feel this conclusion is not what you are getting at, then what’s your point? You’re using this analogy to try to defend your “do nothing” position on mitigation but the analogy continually demonstrates how that’s a ridiculous position.

You’ve danced around this point, saying things like “eating properly and exercising will help control weight gain but may or may not affect when you die” or “who said anything about rationality”. Now you’re saying, “clearly you haven’t seen much of the world where diet is bad and the consequences are obvious”. Of course they are! You’re proving are point for us. Bad diet is bad for you. Improving your diet is good and beneficial for you. Not doing so, because doctor’s cannot guarantee it will kill you, is absurd. And this is exactly what you're trying to say with regards to climate change – models cannot tell us exact details, therefore we shouldn’t do any mitigation. That is equally absurd. It’s terrible logic and even worse risk assessment. This is what you need to address.

ornerynorsk, is that some kind of Onion-like satire outlet? It must be a joke, right?

 

[ornerynorsk]

rconnor, sadly it is not. However, it is also not your typical mainstream media outlet that is spoonfed everything to them by official handlers.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[IRstuff]

The fact that it's owned by the John Birch Society should clear up any questions like that.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

ornerynorsk, I believe you misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether the content was a joke or factual; I know it's a joke. I was asking whether the writers are in on the joke or not (i.e. satire or horribly deluded). IRstuff has answered my question.

[Edit: removed a portion of the comment that was very deconstructive to the conversation. It shouldn't have been said and I apologize for doing so. ornerynorsk rightly referred to it as "curt snobbery" a few posts down. I don't mean to sweep it under the rug but it does more harm than good staying in the post. If you're curious as to what ornerynorsk was referring to, you can look at the revision history of this post.]

 

[hokie66]

Thanks for that, ornery. And the fact that the New American is owned by the John Birch Society makes me more likely to pay attention, not less. The "joke" is being foisted on us by the warmists.

 

[SkipVought]

This is a typical shaming technique, using the genetic fallacy, rather than dealing with the data and arguments being presented. This also happens in the scientific/academic community to anyone who does not tow the party line. I'm with Ben Stein.

Back about a hundred plus years ago a politician by the name of George Washington Plunkitt enriched himself by way of what he referred to as "honest graft." Now we have the international community attempting to plunder the producing nations for the alleged purpose of combatting climate change, which has been occurring for millions of years. All the folks (scientists, politicians, companies, Mr. Internet Al, et al) that are on the bus, get to suck on the teats of the cash cow. GWP would have affectionately called it "honest graft." I have reason to believe that it is not all that honest.

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

 

[ornerynorsk]

Ah, the curt snobbery at last emerges. My expectations of humanity has remained the same. If those of you suffering from chronic omnisciency would actually take time to learn how the John Birch Society came to be, you might view it in a different light. I'll take the New American over Fox or Huffington Post any day. I appreciate your comment hokie66, thank-you!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

hokie66 (or SkipVought or ornerynorsk), perhaps you can clarify how supporting the Least Developed Countries Fund (or here) is the same as "Dictators [sic] Demand [sic] Trillions [sic] in "Climate" Loot [sic] From West"? (Also, why is climate in quotation marks? Do they not believe in climate? Was the concept of climate created by neo-commie-Nazi government scientists to brainwash our children!!!!!!) (Also, notice that the only references links provided in the article are to other New American articles, including one titled "Climate Scientist: “Global Warming Nazis” Threaten Humanity"...quality journalism!)

This is a typical shaming technique, using the genetic fallacy, rather than dealing with the data and arguments being presented.

What data???? Tell me where in that article there is anything close to resembling data? Remember – numbers without sources are just that, numbers without sources.

What arguments? The article doesn’t present an argument; it dictates to the reader a conspiracy theory involving Western governments funding “trillions” (source?) to “Dictators” (source?) and provides NOTHING to support it. There’s no explanation of how funds going to the LDCF will end up in the hands of dictators. There’s nothing to address because nothing resembling a rational argument is put forward – it just says it is so. It is simply so wrong and intellectually vapid that it cannot even enter the realm of rational critique.

This is perhaps the worst, least supported, most ideologically driven, factually vacuous piece I’ve ever read. The fact this piece is being used as support for people’s views on climate science further emphasizes my point of “playing chess with a pigeon”.

NASA, NOAA, PNAS, Science and Nature = untrustworthy, leftist, "alarmist" tripe!
The New American = the only trustworthy news source!

It’s Pigeon Rules Chess!

 

[SkipVought]

@ornery, I knew Robert & Marion Welch. We was a patriot, although I disagreed with some of his conclusions. The mass media has almost always attempted to marginalize unpopular contrarian views, like that international communism was objectively evil and aggressively subversive internationally and here at home. Progressives tend to belittle those who hold such views. Knew that publication when it was American Opinion.

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

 

[rconnor]

This little side bar has brought forward something that continually puzzles me about the ideological rejection of climate change science.

What I’ll never understand is why those that have ideological rejections to climate change mitigation measures feel the need to completely throw out their trust in the scientific institution with it. Surely there must be a middle-ground where you can accept the science (not some carefully spun version of the science) and hold your ideological identity. A type of skeptic I could get behind is the one that says, "While I don't trust government intervention for ideological reasons, I do support the scientific evidence that demonstrates mitigation measures are required. So, I'm willing to bring forward possible solutions that will also be tolerable with my ideological preferences.” Certainly if the “free-market” is the panacea to all life’s problems then there must be “free-market” solutions to climate change. Interestingly, the only example I can see is the cap-and-trade program (developed around the time of the Bush Sr. Administration), which was promoted as a “free-market” solution to climate change. It’s funny that “free-market” enthusiasts and climate change mitigation “skeptics” (but I repeat myself) now use cap-and-trade as the example of some anti-free-market government power play.

Unfortunately such voices are seemingly absent. Frankly, I don’t think I can name a single one in the climate science debate (and I’m not even limiting that statement to this forum). We certainly have people that will say something similar to that up front but, when push comes to shove, they continually try to minimize the requirement for mitigation measures (they now refer to themselves as “lukewarmists”). Almost always, these people will put the protection of the “free-market” ahead of the protection against climate change, meaning they don’t really accept the science (or they do but are apathetic to the damages).

Instead we get the typical “climate change is a hoax!” style “skepticism”. Even the more sophisticated arguments stem from this common base. Their ideologically held anti-government sentiment is disturbingly turned into an anti-science sentiment, where the scientific institution must be in cahoots with the government. That otherwise rational people could prescribe to such nonsense is a testament to the power of cognitive dissonance.

I’m sure many are thinking, “it’s not that we don’t believe in science, we just don’t believe in the particular conclusions we read. See this blog post for the science I agree with.” However, such positions require “blog science” to be not just equal to but superior to peer-reviewed science in the most esteemed scientific journals. They also require a systematic effort from the scientific establishment to block this "superior" “blog science” from being published on an unheard of scale (despite the fact that contrarian papers and contrarian authors do get published). I’m sorry but I don’t see a difference between that and an anti-science sentiment.

Perhaps the conclusions that stem from the scientific evidence are truly incompatible with “free-market” ideology. I’m not sure that’s the case but, if it is, throwing out the former to protect the latter, which is done so often, is not the reasonable thing to do. Ironically, this is analogous to the church’s attempt to throw out Galileo’s findings to protect their ideologically-founded view on anthropocentricism. The fact that many here use the Galileo Gambit and call climate change science a “religion” to support their ideologically-driven rejection of scientific evidence lies somewhere between comical and sad.

At the end of the day, I want to say that ideologically-driven resistance to climate change mitigation does not mean you have to completely turn your back on science. You can still come to the table, accept the science and join the discussion on solutions that will benefit everyone. I trust that our solutions will be better off having more voices at the table. The key, though, is you cannot play pigeon rules chess at this table – and if that means letting go of some ideologically-driven assumptions, then you must be willing to do so (as must we all). If you can’t, then you will continually be on the sidelines as the world moves ahead.

 

[ornerynorsk]

c'mon rconnor, quit sugar coating it and tell us how you really feel.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Also, just curious . . . would global cooling be preferred to warming, or would that be bad, as well? Not sure that stasis is in the cards.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

Stasis is not in the cards on geologic time scales. We've already talked about this. See 27 Oct 15 18:27 or 28 Oct 15 22:03.

If you ask questions, I'll do my best to answer them (which I've always been willing to do). If you post nonsense articles, there's no helping that.

 

[rb1957]

cooling is generally known to be much harder to live with than (modest) warming. I'm not talking about extremes, I'm talking about 2-5deg, like in the medieval warm period and the "little ice age". Those two conditions greatly changed human life styles.

Probably the big issue is how would rainfall change ? in the olde days populations had a limited area to draw on for crops so if a society's catchment area went dry they had Problems (research what happened to the Mayans). Today we have a global catchment area so we're alittle insulated from this, but not inoculated (a change in rainfall patterns would impact how we grow food, and how much it costs).

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

 

[hawkaz]

rconner,
One of the reasons that many are doubters is due to a lack of credibility in the public face of the climate change movement. You seem to understand the science and argue based on those merits. That is commendable, but very few people are going to read, let alone understand, all the references you have provided. Unfortunately, many others who are more public are not very trustworthy. When we see Al "I invented the internet and Love Story is about me" Gore put out his movie (and the fact checkers shatter it), and when the scientists in England get caught fudging numbers (even if they were meaningless numbers)- the public starts to question the validity of the whole thing. In our industries, we all understand that it takes years to build credibility- and one moment to destroy it.

 

[rconnor]

hawkaz,

You bring up an interesting and important point. I agree that the perception of the average layman can be completely dissociated from the scientific reality and sometimes the messaging of the science can cause that. But let’s be clear about something – people that use Al Gore or “Climategate” as examples of reasons why they distrust the scientific reality were looking for a reason to distrust the scientific reality prior to Al Gore or “Climategate”. Anyone that is honestly looking into climate change understands that Al Gore is not the spokesperson for climate science. Anyone that is honestly looking into climate change understands the proper context of “Climategate” and that the entire ordeal resulted from misrepresenting cherry-picked (stolen) quotes out of context.

Now, of course, this is dependent on where you get your news from. The 7 official probes that resulted from “climategate” will tell you that “Climategate” did not expose any major scientific malpractice. WUWT and Fox News will tell you otherwise. Any honest and reasonable person would, when looking for information on “Climategate”, hold the 7 official inquiries as having more credibility than some biased internet blog (*if you disagree, please explain. If your explanation requires a conspiracy theory, you’ll need to provide evidence to support that conspiracy theory. In other words, follow the rules of rational discourse.). However, if I had no intention of being honest or reasonable, but instead was simply looking for something to suit my preferences, then absolutely I would take whatever source agreed with my preferences. I would also need to prescribe to some conspiracy theory to explain why the 7 official inquires were “hiding the truth”. I would also have to double-down and extend that conspiracy theory to explain why every major scientific journal and scientific institution agrees with the position of the scientists involved in the “climategate” “scandal” and disagreed with the blog posters I use to support my position. I would find myself going deeper and deeper into a pit of anti-science sentiment.

The very important aspect is where people get their information and why. If you think that some internet blog, right-wing think tank or left-wing activist group has a greater understanding the most prestigious scientific institutions we have, you are being dishonest and/or unreasonable. You are searching for information that suits your opinion rather than searching for information to help form your opinion. Furthermore, when presented evidence from the most direct and trustworthy sources (major peer-reviewed journals, prestigious scientific institutions) and you reject it because it doesn’t suit your opinion, then you are being even more dishonest and/or unreasonable. While cognitive dissonance is a natural human reaction, it is not an excuse for continuing to reject the scientific reality.

More specific to this forum, we don’t have the excuse of being scientifically illiterate to the point we are unable to read through scientific papers or digest scientific points. Frankly, this is the reason why I spend time discussion this topic on this forum rather than some average public forum. If we, as engineers and scientifically inclined people, reject the scientific reality in order to save ideological-face, then we cannot fall back on the “but I didn’t know better” excuse. Furthermore, and perhaps more depressing, we rely and use the fruits of the institution of science on a daily basis in our jobs but then, to save ideological-face, so flippantly throw that trust to the wolves when it comes to climate science. Are we really so willing to prescribe to a multidecadal, global systematic conspiracy of scientific thought-suppression to justify our believe in suspect and usually demonstrably false “blog science”? Would we design a system that goes against every published article we’ve ever read because some blog said differently? Would we perform a risk assessment by ignoring the “worse” end of the uncertainty range, misunderstanding and overstating the “better” end of the uncertainty range, ignoring the damages of failure, exaggerating the costs of remedial action, and using uncertainty as evidence in support of not doing anything? This is what troubles me most – we know better.

Hawkaz, I know I’ve posted this before but I need to ask (as no one has answered), which of the following do you feel is the more likely description of reality:

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

-or-
Perhaps, the ideological rejection of mitigation measures by layman isn’t as scientifically or logically justifiable as they wish it was.