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…

 

[IRstuff]

It's an interestingly possible analogy, but the difference is that in WWII, we hit a series tipping points, including, of course, Pearl Harbor, by which time it became obvious that we could no longer simply sit on the sidelines cheering the Brits on. But, the tipping points weren't that easily predicable in 1933; we were still under the mistaken belief that Germany would not break their treaties. Obviously there were lots of people arguing against appeasing the Germans, but few would have expected to have to go to war 6 years later, or were even aware of that possibility.

So, what happens for the climate tipping point? Are we going to have to abandon our coastal cities or move wholesale into the mountains, to where the temperature zones moved? Would we, as we attempt to move our businesses and people from coasts of Los Angeles into the San Gabriel mountains be thinking that, "Gee, we should have done something sooner?" That's the possible cost of doing nothing. Interesting that for a society that ostensibly believes "a stitch in time saves nine" would be so dead set against even a modicum of prevention.

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,

You are quite right to say that I do not believe Lewis and Curry 2014 is inherently flawed. However, I believe you missed a few important statements in the sensitivity thread:

Due to the fact the sample period and technique used introduce lowering biases into the results, LC14 may be useful in establishing the lower bound of sensitivity but in no way offers a conclusive value for the median or best estimate.

A 25 per cent reduction in TCR would mean the changes we expect between now and 2050 might take until early 2060s instead…So, even if correct, it is hardly a game-changer…any revision in the lower bound on climate sensitivity does not affect the urgency of mitigation

(source of quote)

So, Lewis and Curry 2014 is:
1) Inconclusive to definitely say that climate sensitivity is on the low end of the IPCC spectrum
2) The results are suspect and appear to include numerous biases that would lead to lower TCR and ECS
3) Even if it were conclusive and accurate, it would still not suggest that reductions in CO2 emissions are unnecessary. In fact, it adds to the scientific body of knowledge that temperatures will continue to rise to unsafe levels if we continue with the status-quo, just maybe a decade later than other estimates.

I should also note that the Myles Allen quote puts the issue into context. Even with all the biases in Lewis and Curry 2014 that act to lower their TCR/ECS values(not saying they were intentional but they are nevertheless there), it still means that mitigation measures are required (just slightly less urgently). Here's the thing - the difference between sensitivity estimates on the lower end and higher end equates to how quickly we need to enact mitigation measures, not whether we need to or not. This point continues to be lost amongst the discussion.

The other aspect that gets lost is the concept that uncertainty is not our friend. The probability distribution function of climate sensitivity is very fat-tailed. If you don't believe we have a good grasp of sensitivity, then we need to just as seriously contemplate the fact that we've underestimated sensitivity than we've overestimated it. As engineers, we do not do risk assessment exercises by going "but it COULD be better than we think...so let's not do anything about it!". Especially when both the high end is extremely negative and the most likely values are very negative (or a few more sources 1, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm]2[/url], 3, 4, 5, 6).

(Regarding photosynthesis, it is random and off-topic. I will not be discussing it here (nor in Part 2) and hope that you can respect that. But here's some information - 1, 2, 3, 4. There's a lot of information out there. While I have not looked into it in much depth, it certainly looks like the scientific community has.)

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

The first place to find information on this is AR5 WGII. It is, by far, the most comprehensive review of the impacts of climate change. I also feel an understanding of paleoclimatology is important to put things into context. For this, I'd recommend my post at 23 Oct 14 17:19 on this thread. Past changes in climate (which were also driven by CO2, see my post at 22 Apr 15 21:28 here) lead to very drastic changes in the biosphere (1, 2, 3, 4). To imagine that the present is somehow different is, to me, wishful thinking.

 

[moltenmetal]

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.)

The price of oil fell from $110 to below $40 per barrel in the past few years. Did this bring an end to hunger, cold and misery? No, you say? Why not? Is it all because of all those profit-taking bastards in the refineries not passing the savings on to the poor, suffering public? Or perhaps the economics isn't as straightforward as you're assuming?

You said you agreed with the first paragraph of my previous post, but I suspect you misread it. What I'm saying is that people, like you, who imply that increasing FOSSIL energy cost will bring an end to civilization as we know it, are making a predictive statement at least as sketchy as the wildest AGW claims.

Your concern for the poor is laudable but I suspect it's disingenuous. It's an argument made often by people who actually care least about the poor, and worry most about the perceived evils of their own government. But it's quite obvious that you cannot end hunger merely by subsidizing food, whether the subsidy is in the form of artificially cheap fuel and fertilizer to produce it or in some other form.

What we SHOULD have done is filled in, say, half or 2/3 the drop in oil prices with a carbon tax, so we wouldn't back-slide on the gains we made in energy efficiency simply because oil is cheap again. Regrettably we've lost that opportunity.

Nature will wean us from our fossil fuel addiction, eventually. We need to stop wasting these precious resources, if we more than pretend concern about the welfare of future generations. There is every reason to make the fossil resources- particularly the precious liquid ones- even more precious so they are wasted less- and to invest the proceeds in helping people switch to technologies which waste less energy of all kinds.

As to what technologies we should invest in, personally I suggest that carbon capture and sequestration is NOT one of the viable options. It's merely a way for us to p*ss through our finite fossil resources even faster. Rather, we need to invest in greater energy efficiency, and to stop the artificial subsidy on fossil energy. It's beyond absurd that technologies like solar PV and wind, or EVs and hybrids and public transit, or energy efficient lighting or heating etc. etc.- have to compete economically against status quo technologies which get to dump their effluent to the atmosphere free of charge. That change must happen whether AGW is a serious threat or not.

 

[beej67]

Due to the fact the sample period and technique used introduce lowering biases into the results, LC14 may be useful in establishing the lower bound of sensitivity but in no way offers a conclusive value for the median or best estimate.

That's not what IPCC AR5 said. They said a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C was "highest confidence" and explicitly did not give a median or best estimate. Can I appeal to authority in the argument if the authority is the IPCC itself? That seems to be what the pro-drastic-policy people do.

the difference between sensitivity estimates on the lower end and higher end equates to how quickly we need to enact mitigation measures, not whether we need to or not.

I strongly disagree, and the reason goes back to your CO2 blinders. The science will not be settled on CO2 until the error bands for "highest probability" for CO2 ECS are narrowed to within probably half a degree. Lets pretend the science finally settles at error bands between 1.5 C and 2.0 C. In that case, the modeling would clearly show that CO2 is not the only anthropogenic source. That there are other anthropogenic sources as significant as CO2. And if that's the case, then CO2 mitigation measures, no matter what they happen to be, would not be good enough to stop warming.

And this is science we have to get right. It is important to get this science right, with a high degree of certainty. That high degree of certainty simply isn't there yet.

There are two ways to deal with the global warming that is clearly happening. Not one. We can try and find a way to stop it, or we can prepare to live on a warmer planet. Maybe we do a blend of both. But we can't craft policy until we have predictive, high certainty science. And the pause showed, very clearly, that the science is not yet predictive. The very fact that AR5 has just as much uncertainty to the ECS that AR4 and AR3 did shows that the science is not yet predictive. It is especially important to identify all anthropogenic sources when crafting a mitigation policy.

Now in terms of policy objectives and the like, I think we need to shift as much as possible away from oil for political reasons. I think there's an ROI nobody's thinking about. If we (the USA) is no longer dependent on foreign oil, the strategic value of the Middle East dwindles to zero, and we can shift our foreign policy from "regional police" to "don't give a turd," saving probably half the Pentagon budget, and leaving Russia and China to provoke random acts of violence from the barbarian murder cults that live there. I also like carbon reduction for other reasons, namely carbonic acid concentrations rising in the oceans and potentially devastating the diatom ecosystem. But if you sell people on drastic policy based on bad science, and then the bad science becomes exposed, then you have permanently poisoned that well. And that's going to be very bad for environmentalism, and for our futures.

Lets unwrap this statement further:

the difference between sensitivity estimates on the lower end and higher end equates to how quickly we need to enact mitigation measures, not whether we need to or not.

The globe was warming before anthropogenic sources dominated. Even if we were able to mitigate all anthropogenic sources, we would not stop the globe from warming. That means that no amount of mitigation can stop it, only slow it down, so we need to be preparing to live on a warmer planet regardless of what we do with mitigation. And how much preparation vs how much mitigation goes back to ROI. Costs of both. We can't do the proper cost calculations to properly set policy until we know exactly how much sea level rise we avert per pound of CO2 emissions we avoid. A variance of 3 in that formula is not good enough to compare it to building bigger levies.

Thank you for the photosynthesis links. I'll read through them and ponder on that further. It would seem to me that unless the scientific community is accounting for the storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis, they're missing a very large energy balance term. The aggregate of all chemistry taking place in every leaf on the planet is a huge number, and a number that has tracked with human population expansion every bit as much as CO2 has.


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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JJPellin]

ZeroSeq,

The Solyndra failure that is so often sited was part of a program of investments. Any investor making aggressive investments would expect some of them to succeed and some of them to fail. The overall program that included the Solyndra investment turned a very nice profit. To point at that one company and try to use that as proof that any investment in these technologies is foolish is deliberately misleading. It was a good program. It made a profit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra

Johnny Pellin

 

[beej67]

Reviewing the links, I think they're missing an important key component on LULCC (land use and land cover change) forcing.

1) All the links say that LULCC cools the planet. We know this not to be true, we can see it from space.

2) All the links focus on the following factors:
albedo change
influences on atmospheric chemistry
aerosols

3) None of them talk about energy storage itself.

To take a wider look, my field (stormwater hydrology) does quite a lot with conservation of mass. What goes in must come out (less what remains). The storage .. (less what remains) .. is a very important term. Leaves aren't just changing albedo, and changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, they are storing solar energy in chemical bonds. Sometimes that energy is released in different ways, like if you burn the leaf, or something eats the leaf. But if the leaf isn't burned or digested, some of the energy is released during decomposition and the leaf turns to soil, where whatever remaining chemical bonds are added to the substrata of the earth itself. The energy is stored. Most people believe this is where the energy we extract from fossil fuels came from in the first place.

I think this is a potential gap in the science. And since vegetation has tracked downward with human expansion, the trend is a mirror of CO2 emissions, and a model intentionally calibrated towards blaming either of the two effects alone would appear to be just as correct as a model calibrated to blame the other, or a model properly calibrated to blame both.

On your links -

This ignores energy storage:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/bonan/seminars/Stomata18Sep12.pdf

This doesn't really talk about climate modeling, and is more about the effects of the climate on photosynthesis itself:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/acp-14-12701-2014.html

3 was similar to 2:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-01568-2_16

This is similar to 1, in that it only concerns itself with the plants effects on CO2 concentration:

http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/ctem/phtsyn/

More studies I've dug up, which are more pertinent to my question, still don't address the storage of energy itself as an energy budget term:

This is a great one, but again suffers from the omission I point out:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/acp-14-12701-2014.html

This one just talks about atmo carbon balance:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/5/443/2014/esdd-5-443-2014.html

This one attempts to undo a lot of the hocus pocus in the modeling where people claim deforestation leads to coolilng, which is nice, but it still doesn't address my concern:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/317/2013/esdd-4-317-2013.html

This one's again just about carbon cycle:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/235/2013/esdd-4-235-2013.html

This one is neat. They model tree cover after CO2 increases along RCP 8.5, then magically erase the human race to see what the trees do.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/485/2012/esdd-3-485-2012.html

This one is starting to crack the egg I'd like to see cracked, which is how LULCC affects hydrology, which in turn affects climate, but they're still not dealing with energy storage:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/201/2012/esdd-3-201-2012.html

I simply can't find anything in the literature that talks about the storage of solar energy by plantlife as term in the overall energy budget. Now I admit I could be barking up one of many wrong trees here. And if I can find one study that says this storage term should be flat out neglected, and it's a solid study, I'd probably drop the question. But I can't find one.

There are huge gaps in this scientific space. They admit they aren't sure how LULCC works. They admit they can't figure out how cloud cover fits into the whole picture, both because water vapor is a greenhouse gas but cloud cover reflects solar energy. All the LULCC maps in all these studies just show land. They are flat ignoring the photosynthetic processes of algae. This science is not good enough yet to craft a policy on which the entire world's economy will hinge. And that's clearly evident by the wide range of possible ECS values in IPCC AR5. I commend them for being honest about the high variability in their ECS prediction. But until we can get solid numbers to plug into this formula:

F(CO2)=(sealevelrise)

..we can't decide whether mitigation, preparation, just moving inland, or some combination of all three will be the best policy.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Hold on:'Just look at the CAFE mileage standards that have taken 30 years to get about a 60% improvement.'
Does anyone believe this?
I have a 30 year old pickup that still gets 31 MPG per gallon. Are you suggesting the new pickups are getting 49 MPG?
How many cars get that kind of mileage?

All the CAFE standards are doing is to reduce non-carbon output.

 

[IRstuff]

CAFE standard is a fleet average, and in the intervening time, smog generation was drastically decreased, so the 30 yr pickup probably dumps way more smog than the current ones.

But, that's what takes the time to achieve whatever goals that are set. No one is going to set a requirement that is either unachievable or that costs everyone too much. The end result will be a slow grind to the ultimate goal. Unless, of course, sufficiently drastic disasters start occurring.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[GTTofAK]

I had to stop and laugh at Rconnors sophism. One would think that a Mechanical engineer would know that nothing directly measures temperature.

Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature.

Laughable absolutely laughable.

Tell me Rconnor how does a liquid thermometer measure temperature?

How does a probe thermometer measure temperature?

How does an IR thermometer measure temperature?

All thermometers measure some proxy for temperature and us that measurement to infer temperature.

Liquid thermometers measure the thermal expansion of a liquid like mercury.

Probe thermometers measure the electrical impermanence of their metal probe.

IR thermometers measure infrared radiation.

This is pure sophism. Rconnor started at his conclusion 'I have to ignore satellite data' and built his argument backwards form there.

 

[rb1957]

"CAFE standard is a fleet average, and in the intervening time, smog generation was drastically decreased, so the 30 yr pickup probably dumps way more smog than the current ones." ... I mulled over this idea over the weekend. There's some hair-brained scheme to disperse vast amounts of sulphuric acid into the atmosphere to make particulates, to reduce GW. I mean, good grief, our unintended consequences are bad enough, now we're going to intentionally mess with the environment.

In any case, my thought was, why don't we just remove those catalytic converters and save everyone a ton of time and money ?

and don't say "'cause we plan to disperse the acid at 100,000 ft and cars will make smog at SL and the effect on climate is completely different. 'cause i'll say "remember the CHCs? they went where we didn't expect them to go; what do you think wil;l happen to these particles ?"




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

 

[TJOrlowski]

I'm just glad moltenmetal isn't in charge of running the economy (although I suspect it's pretty high on the priority list).

Just a personal story: my home heating bill has in fact decreased every year as the cost of oil has come down. When oil was trading at $120/barrel, I was paying $4.30/gal for the oil in my house. As oil trades at $45/barrel today, I'll be able to fill my tank for $1.79/gal. Oil down 60% on the open market, oil down 60% retail. I'm missing the part where the "profit-taking bastards" aren't passing along the savings.

Personally, I'm happy to keep the extra $2,700/year in my pocket. I'd suspect that other people of limited means also enjoy saving the money, or maybe living in additional comfort during the cold months if the lower cost of energy allows them to keep the thermostat a degree or two warmer.

"No no grandma! You can't pay 60% less for your oil this year and keep a larger portion of your Social Security check. We had to fill in 2/3 of that with a carbon tax because you're destroying the earth!"



-TJ Orlowski

 

[SkipVought]

I can remember the "Global cooling" scare in the 70s. Politically motivated to grab more power for governments (the bigger the government, the small the individual)

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/.

Seems AGW has about as much "science" as AGC.

I also remember similar cries of "wolf" regarding runaway population growth. POWER GRABS ALL, care of Chicken Little Machiavelli!



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

 

[IRstuff]

"This is pure sophism. Rconnor started at his conclusion 'I have to ignore satellite data' and built his argument backwards form there. "

Sophism by ignoring what Rconnor stated about why satellite measurements were problematic, which was not because they're measuring radiance, per se, but WHERE in the atmosphere the radiance is being measured.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[JJPellin]

The point about a global cooling scare in the 1970's is unfounded. There were sensational articles written about the subject in the popular press. But, the overwhelming scientific position was predicting warming.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Johnny Pellin

 

[SkipVought]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

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

 

[GTTofAK]

Sophism by ignoring what Rconnor stated about why satellite measurements were problematic, which was not because they're measuring radiance, per se, but WHERE in the atmosphere the radiance is being measured.

No that is time constraints. I do not have the time to point by point. I simply commented on the first piece of sophism that jumped off the page. It was the first reason given in his list so obviously he considers it the most important. Now you are attempting to down play its significance because you know he is wrong in arguing that this is somehow unique to the satellite data set. A light-bulb just went off over your head 'Oh yeah thermometers dont directly measure temperature.' Everything we use is a proxy from which we infer temperature.

As to where, AGW theory dictates that the actual effect occurs in the upper troposphere. Any surface warming is an after effect of what is happening in the upper troposphere. So arguing that somehow surface measurements are superior to tropospheric measurements represents an absolute ignorance of true AGW theory. IF, surface warming is not following tropospheric warming then AGW cannot be the primary cause because theory dictates that the troposphere drives the surface. If the two are unconnected its time for a new explanation.

For more information read up on Gilbert Plass, spectral broadening, and water vapor feedback. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[GTTofAK]

The point about a global cooling scare in the 1970's is unfounded. There were sensational articles written about the subject in the popular press. But, the overwhelming scientific position was predicting warming.

When doing a meta-analysis how do you downplay a scare? Simple you extend the survey period well beyond the scare. In your referenced study the authors simply engaged in a dishonest slight of hand. The actual global cooling scare was short lived, coinciding with the massive double dip 1974-1976 La Nina that had everyone screaming global ice age. By the late 70s the scare was over.

Your study authors who include the often banned from Wikipedia for repeated slander climate advocate William M. Connolley (you are already losing credibility) simply extended their survey period to well beyond the actual period to get the results they wanted. By extending the survey period from 1965 well before the scare, to 1983 well after the scare had ended, Mr. Connolley and the rest of the team was guaranteed to get the results they wanted.

If William M. Connolley cant meet the low ethical standards of Wikipedia what makes you think he has the ethics to do an honest analysis? This papers uses a rather obvious trick, if you bother to read it, to fool its readers. I'd expect nothing less from a man who has been banned from Wikipedia for poor ethics.

 

[JJPellin]

GTTofAK,

You should have read the article more carefully. This was not simply a meta-analysis of the cumulative papers published or referenced. Figure 1 on Page 1333 clearly shows the number of papers published each year during this period. Even in the supposed scare years of 1974 to 1976, there were many more papers published in each and every year that were supportive of warming than were supportive of cooling. There was no scare. Only cherry picking of old articles makes it appears as if there was.

Johnny Pellin

 

[rconnor]

beej67,

Regarding the IPCC sensitivity estimate, again, you are correct that IPCC removed the “best estimate” from their conclusions and lowered the lower bound. However, you omit an very relevant statement from AR5 (my emphasis):

…this change [to climate sensitivity] reflects the evidence from new studies of observed temperature change, using the extended records in atmosphere and ocean. These studies suggest a best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range. Note that these studies are not purely observational, because they require an estimate of the response to radiative forcing from models. In addition, the uncertainty in ocean heat uptake remains substantial. Accounting for short term variability in simple models remains challenging, and it is important not to give undue weight to any short time period that might be strongly affected by internal variability

Also note that the comment about OHC is very relevant to Durack et al 2014, which was released after Lewis and Curry 2014. Energy balance models are very sensitivity to OHC and Durack et al 2014 found that OHC had previously been underestimated. Applying the corrections of Durack et al 2014, Lewis and Curry 2014’s sensitivity estimates would increase by about ~15% (according to Gavin Schmidt of NASA).

The science will not be settled on CO2 until the error bands for "highest probability" for CO2 ECS are narrowed to within probably half a degree. Lets pretend the science finally settles at error bands between 1.5 C and 2.0 C. In that case, the modeling would clearly show that CO2 is not the only anthropogenic source. That there are other anthropogenic sources as significant as CO2. And if that's the case, then CO2 mitigation measures, no matter what they happen to be, would not be good enough to stop warming.

Could you expand on this. To me, there are many unsupported jumps in reasoning here. I think it’s important to understand that climate sensitivity numbers do not represent what the future temperature rise will be, they represent the temperature rise at a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels (i.e. at 560 ppm). So without mitigation measures, if CO2 concentrations keep on increasing, the planet will keep on warming. This is why the difference between using Lewis and Curry 2014 sensitivity estimates merely pushes the 2 deg C point out by a decade. Low sensitivity makes mitigation more manageable, it does not make it pointless.

There are two ways to deal with the global warming that is clearly happening. Not one. We can try and find a way to stop it, or we can prepare to live on a warmer planet. Maybe we do a blend of both… That means that no amount of mitigation can stop it, only slow it down, so we need to be preparing to live on a warmer planet regardless of what we do with mitigation. And how much preparation vs how much mitigation goes back to ROI.

Absolutely we need both mitigation and adaptation. However, pure adaptation is much more costly than mitigation and adaptation. See the 6 papers I linked after “the most likely values are very negative (or a few more sources…” in my last post. AR5 WGII and WGIII are also great resources (also, WGIII SPM.4.2.4 might be of particular interest to you beej67). The “wait-and-see” mentality is a dangerous one in face of all the research coming out saying the longer we wait, the more drastic our mitigation efforts will need to be. See this new article in Science Magazine. There’s a good write up on the article found here.

Another important concept is that some aspects of climate change are not captured in an ROI. The best example is displaced people caused by changes in climate, whether it’s due to sea level rise or changes in local climate. Mass forced migration is never simple and the issues go so far beyond economic ones. There are very real and very difficult political, cultural and moral issues associated with mass forced migration (just ask Europe). A simple economic assessment is blind to these issues but policy makers shouldn’t be. Elon Musk recently made this same point.

We can't do the proper cost calculations to properly set policy until we know exactly how much sea level rise we avert per pound of CO2 emissions we avoid

You never have 100% assurance of the future when you do risk assessment exercises, you know this. You always work off the likelihood of events happening and the possible impacts. Furthermore, when doing risk assessment exercises, uncertainty is not your friend. Especially when the vast majority of the science that comes out says it will likely be very problematic.

It would seem to me that unless the scientific community is accounting for the storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis, they're missing a very large energy balance term.

They do, see IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3 (I’m digging through AR5 to find the updated value) or Beltrami et al 2002. Continents absorb 2.1% of the energy imbalance. Now, this doesn’t break out photosynthesis from other methods of land-based absorption of energy but I hardly see the relevancy of needing it further sub-divided. Note this means that photosynthesis is <2.1% of the total absorption. So while possibly not trivial in magnitude, it certainly isn’t missing.

Furthermore, if “storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis” were missing from the energy balance it would mean the energy imbalance is LARGER than originally thought as more energy would be trapped inside the system. This would mean the planet is more sensitivity to CO2 than previously believed. But seeing as it isn't missing, I really don’t care to discuss this topic.

I simply can't find anything in the literature that talks about the storage of solar energy by plantlife as term in the overall energy budget. Now I admit I could be barking up one of many wrong trees here. And if I can find one study that says this storage term should be flat out neglected, and it's a solid study, I'd probably drop the question. But I can't find one.

Have you looked through AR5 WGI Chapter 6 – Carbon and Other Biochemical cycles or Charter 8 – Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing (specifically 8.3.5)? What about their 28 pages of combined references? You know that there might not be a single paper that answers your question but, rather, a series of papers, right? I just feel it's off topic here and don't want to drag the conversation too far down this tangent. The information is out there, I'd suggest spending some time reading up on it.

 

[Longinthetooth]

Yawn................