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…

 

[rconnor]

ZeroSeq,

Climate sensitivity is a very interesting topic. It was discussed here before. I'm afraid that, as IRstuff pointed out, your "Fact" #2 is hardly fact. In reality, it goes against almost all the peer-reviewed research on the subject. Please see my opening post in the thread linked for a few such examples.

The relevant part to this discussion is that the "pause" was often used as an argument that Earth was not that sensitivity to CO2. As has been demonstrated in Part 1, the Earth has continued to gain energy at a very steady pace, indicating that the radiative imbalance due to CO2 is still very much there. Furthermore, the fact that solar activity has been in decline since ~1960 while OHC has continued to rise would be very difficult to explain if CO2 sensitivity wasn't large (so would all of the Earth's past...but that's another story...).

And please, I ask that discussion on model accuracy be left until after I post the second part. It's my hope that by outlining the research and facts surrounding the matter, much of the confusion will be erased. But, again, I'd like to stress that understanding the information presented in Part 1 is a prerequisite to being able to understand and discuss models accuracy in relation to the "pause". If you simply cannot wait, I suggest my post on models at 4 Apr 14 17:45 in this thread.

 

[ZeroSeq]

rconnor,

My apologies for highjacking your thread, although a topic like climate change is bound to have multiple tangents.

Regarding the purpose of this thread, I think a majority of the people would agree with beej67's initial response:

"The pause does not mean AGW is a thing. The pause does not mean AGW is not a thing. Trying to understand the pause is a valuable exercise.
But the most important thing the pause proved, quite honestly, is that models we were told were absolutely predictive, weren't."

That being said, lets just assume for a moment that CO2 is the sole cause (primary forcing mechanism with exceedingly high sensitivity) of global warming.

So what?

I think the most important discussion should be about confirming the hypotheses of disastrous consequences on our way of life (so called "superstorms", drought, floods, famine, apocalypse, Hilary Clinton, etc.) before one more of my tax dollars are spent on programs like Solyndra.

 

[hokie66]

rconner,
You should have learned by not that cats cannot be herded.

 

[SAITAETGrad]

Here is a link of interest to this topic:

Link

 

[IRstuff]

"Yet nobody seems to be willing to accept that the warming might be coming from somewhere else, indirectly correlated with but not caused by CO2. In my mind, that should be the second big takeaway from 'the pause,' that perhaps we need to be looking for other drivers than just CO2. I think searching for those other drivers would do the science a world of good, even though it wouldn't likely help Al Gore's carbon trading scheme at Goldman Sachs."

Based on what measurements and what phenomenology? I hear lots of noise about "might be," etc., but, again, why haven't the millions of dollars spent by the Koch brothers, etal, supporting the deniers produced tangible alternative and quantitative explanations? Seems to me that the Koch brothers could have easily funded dozens of climate scientists to find an alternative explanation.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[moltenmetal]

I think the most important discussion should be about confirming the hypotheses of disastrous consequences on our way of life (so called "superstorms", drought, floods, famine, apocalypse, Hilary Clinton, etc.) before one more of my tax dollars are spent on programs like Solyndra.

And I think the hypothesis of "disastrous consequences" arising from doing something meaningful about AGW has to be proven by the people making that assertion.

Solyndra? Governments do dumb, costly stuff from time to time, even with the best of intentions. Tons of private money is similarly wasted on dumb schemes, usually dragging a bunch of public money with it down the toilet. Right now, governments are foregoing an enormous amount of tax collection on very profitable fossil fuel industries, as well as providing other subsidy to forms of energy that generate significant risks for people who aren't consumers of that energy, including future generations. Personally I find that far more offensive than the odd Solyndra. Those 3rd party impacts from fossil energy consumption should be addressed by means of a tax, combined with better emissions regulations, and that should happen irrespective of whether AGW is a "thing" or not.

Models can't prove anything, but basic physics is all you need to know to understand the RISK represented by CO2 emissions. If you want to carry out some kind of Earth-scale cost-benefit analysis related to altering the Earth's climate and then do an economic impact minimization study to generate an optimal result, I suggest you're going to be out of luck on this one. There are no accelerated timescale miniature Earths on which to carry out the necessary trials.

Nature will eventually wean us from our fossil fuel addiction- it's merely a question of whether or not we'll exceed Earth's carrying capacity for the effluent first. It is very difficult to substitute the fossil liquids with renewables, and those materials are the source of many, many things we find essential to our modern existence. Getting people from point A to point B using a power source other than liquid fuels is childsplay in comparison. That transition is happening now, but it will happen even faster if we alter the broken economics that support the status quo by means of a fossil carbon tax. That tax will do what it needs to, in economic terms, whether the money is spent as it should be (to help people make investments in using less energy of all kinds), or "wasted" on Solyndras, or schools and hospitals etc. The undeniably toxic emissions from fossil fuel combustion happen to absolutely positively correlate with their CO2 emissions.

I say it's high time we got on with it.

 

[cranky108]

There maybe an interesting point hidden here. The Koch brothers may not be interested in finding the missing component, because it just may be CH4 which has been leaking from oil, coal, and other human events, and maybe almost unaccounted for.

This once thought of gas has a low BTU, and has been consitered a waste product. It is emitted from oil fields, coal mines (working or not), dung heaps, sewer plants, and has increased with human activity.

Maybe CO2 is wrong, but the Koch brothers don't want to admit what is the correct answer.

 

[ZeroSeq]

Moltenmetal, I tend to agree with your first paragraph.

I think we have beaten an entire chorale of dead horses on the subject of whether or not man is affecting Earth's climate. Nobody is going to change their view.

I think its time to shift the discussion to what the consequences are, be it bad or good, and what is the best way to tackle said problem (if it turns out to be a problem).

Convincing me that our emissions are the main cause of global warming, that's one thing. Convincing me that our emitted CO2 (and thus global warming) is the DIRECT cause of famine, drought, superstorms, and floods.. well, that's a whole different ball game.

 

[beej67]

Based on what measurements and what phenomenology?

The Lewis/Curry study above is quite detailed, peer reviewed, work, and sets the ECS at 1.64. Which is within the lower bound of IPCC AR5, for what that's worth, since IPCC AR5 can't seem to nail things down within a factor of 3. The IPCC literally stated, most recently, that "the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is somewhere between 1.5 degrees celcius per doubling to maybe uhh something like triple that much."

This science is not good enough on which to base major policy decisions that affect the entire globe. "Maybe something like 1.5 or maybe triple that" is not good enough to set global policy on. It's just not.

No other science that blatantly undetermined has ever been used to craft policy.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Lewis and Curry was discussed here already. Not a single person (including yourself) bothered to defend the paper then but that won't stop you from parroting it again.

I'll also include the quote from from Nasim Taleb:

Skepticism about climate models should lead to more precautionary policies in the presence of ruin. It is incoherent to doubt the mean while reducing the variance.

"Skeptics" only like to look at the left side of sensitivity probability distributions, while ignoring the right, fat-tail.

My apologies for highjacking your thread, although a topic like climate change is bound to have multiple tangents.

No worries ZeroSeq, I appreciate how intertwined the aspects of climate change are. As I haven't seen you in these discussions before, you might not be aware of the past discussions which is why I referenced that other thread (beej67 doesn't have that excuse though). But I apologize if I came off as curt with you.

But back to the topic at hand, are all of you that seem to think that Part 1 is pointless willing to admit:
1) OHC has continued to rise by a large amount while solar activity has been dwindling, demonstrating that the radiative imbalance is still present
2) ENSO has played a very large role in the apparent lower trends as of late (very important for Part 2)
3) New data, including 2014 and 2015 temperatures and updated research, demonstrate that the warming is larger than appeared a few years back (when AR5 was released...again very important for Part 2)
4) Statistically speaking, the "pause" never existed

If so, I guess I can work on finishing Part 2.

(edit: fixed link to "Climate Sensitivity and What Lewis and Curry 2014 Has to Say About it")

 

[beej67]

Can any of you guys, RConnor or IR or anyone else, explain to me in detail how the modelers handle the storage terms in the energy budget associated with photosynthesis?

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[canwesteng]

Well, so the consensus even from skeptics is that we are warming the planet by using a resource that will eventually run out and need to be replaced, and the argument is that it's more economically viable to completely use up our resources now and figure out the solution later when we've massively altered our climate?

 

[ZeroSeq]

I'm a "skeptic" and I am still under the impression that we do not know with any degree of certainty what our impact truly is.

I'm also under the impression that it is almost useless discussing this topic further as nobody will change their view. rconnor, I appreciate the effort that you put into your posts, I still have quite a bit of reading to do.

What I have yet to see is a detailed discussion on the evidence supporting the hypothesis that our impact is directly correlated to potentially disastrous consequences on our way of life.
That is the most important issue as our response to such a hypothesis (such as increasing the cost of energy and thus the cost of food, causing starvation for millions who live on a few dollars a day) without concrete evidence is extremely harmful (some may say immoral).

If that has already taken place, please let me know and leave a link to the thread.

 

[beej67]

I'm not sure there's a consensus among people labeled "skeptics," other than that they are all skeptical that a body of science that can't narrow the most important variable in the research down to within a factor of 3, can be relied upon for crafting the most economically manipulative global policy in the history of mankind.

Lewis and Curry was discussed here already. Not a single person (including yourself) bothered to defend the paper then but that won't stop you from parroting it again.

Yep, sure was. You opened by stating very clearly that they might be right.

To claim that a single paper can definitely set climate sensitivity, is false. While on the low side, Lewis and Curry 2014 does sit within the spectrum of other estimates.

Hell, their number lies within the IPCC AR5 range for what tHe IPCC themselves call "high confidence."

But having a "high confidence" of 1.5 to 4.5 just isn't very confident as far as I'm concerned, if planning policy for 1.5 is different than planning policy for 4.5. That's like turning on the TV and having the weather lady say there's a 90% chance of it being either rainy or sunny tomorrow. A range that large is of little value in crafting policy.

 

[beej67]

When you put your next big post together, rconnor, can you please carve off a paragraph to talk about how the storage term for chemical photosynthesis is handled within the global energy balance modeling? That's of particular interest to me, personally, and contrary to what you may believe, I do find your posts interesting reading.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[IRstuff]

"But having a "high confidence" of 1.5 to 4.5 just isn't very confident as far as I'm concerned, if planning policy for 1.5 is different than planning policy for 4.5. That's like turning on the TV and having the weather lady say there's a 90% chance of it being either rainy or sunny tomorrow. A range that large is of little value in crafting policy."

And yet, we do that all the time. How many times have we designed systems without full knowledge? How much certainty is there that any given customer will pay their bills on time or even at all? We "invest" in our 401Ks knowing that we really have zero knowledge about what's really going to happen, and consequently, we are, in fact, betting on the come that we'll have some sort of nest egg at the end of our careers. Nevertheless, one can still make horrible choices and wind up with little, or choose ultra-secure investments that will need very little. Anyone who even works for any company has little assurance that they'll still have a job five years from now. Anyone who worked at Enron, Montgomery Ward, or Northrop Grumman can attest to the fact that job security is non-existent. If we demand perfect knowledge of the future before we make a life-altering decision, I'd be surprised if we even made it out of bed every morning.

It seems odd that as working engineers who deal with uncertainty of outcome on a daily basis would demand so much certainty on modeling as complex a system as climate. If you apply your standard design safety factor to even the lowest estimate of temperature rise, where do you wind up?

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[IRstuff]

Also, just reconsider the multitude of mutual and hedge funds and how few of them beat the market, despite the myriad of computers and algorithms and models that are applied to the problem. We make our investment decisions knowing that it's a crap shoot, but to do nothing guarantees no return.

If we do nothing, we're guaranteed to achieve the worst possible actual outcome. And we bet the farm on some "deus ex machina" solution will magically save us if the worst case becomes reality, whether that's some magical reversal of the climate change or the magical "adaptation" that we'll achieve. Is that the way we do designs and engineering?

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[ZeroSeq]

IRstuff,
Absolutely correct, it is a careful balance of risk vs. reward. However, the cost of immediate action (ie. drastic increase in energy costs leading to millions of people without access to cheap food, heating in winter, etc.) to gain the possible benefit of reduction in CO2 emissions that may slightly reduce global heating which in turn may, and that is a big may, reduce the probability of droughts, violent weather, ocean temp rise, etc. is what I disagree with.

Obviously, the above statement is an extreme simplification of the full cost/benefit analysis, but as of right now, public policy is focusing solely on the possible benefits and not on the immense costs.

 

[IRstuff]

Certainly, cost is a major obstacle, but we as a planet have often done things without necessarily full regard to cost; the US moon landing program is one such beast. If the country knew prior to the Mercury program how much it would eventually cost, would we still have proceeded? And to some extent, the massive cost isn't going to be instantaneous, if for no other reason than the fact that no one, with the possible exception of China, could lay their hands on that much money that quickly. As with current green initiatives, even if we decided today to make the necessary changes, it'll easily be 20 years before everything really gets going. Just look at the CAFE mileage standards that have taken 30 years to get about a 60% improvement. (Those dirty rats still are holding on to the 100 mpg engine designs ;-)

People complained about the cost of eliminating fluorocarbons that were killing the atmospheric ozone, yet almost 40 years later, other than some diehards who still hoard the "good" Freon, we've adjusted, and the ozone depletion seems to have at least "paused." There were certainly lots of naysayers saying that there were other causes of the ozone depletion, it would cost too much, there's be wholesale disruptions in the economy, etc. This discussion may simply be the first 3 stages of grief for the end of a lifestyle, much like what happened in the mid 70s when we discussed banning CFCs.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[JNieman]

Remember when the USA went without several precious, and some common, metals, nylon stockings, and the majority of our male population, so that we could wage a war for a good cause back in the early 20th century? What was the cost there? We sacrificed so much, got by with so little, labored with great stress and immeasurable costs. That was only a war waged for a portion of the planet. This topic is absolutely global.

Keep in mind the scale of risk when you discuss the notion of cost. Context is key.