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…

 

[cranky108]

With so much governmental action being proposed, based on a theory, why would we not want to debate the facts, models, and parts of the theory.

If there is mistrust of the data, models, or conclusions, then that also should be debated. So why is the data not being allowed to be viewed?
Again this is where mistrust begins. It continues with statements like "The science has been settled". No the science has not been settled until the data has been reviewed by the most hated critic, the voters.

The current movement is to hush up any speech that is counter to your thoughts, and that is about several things, and it appears to also include climate change. This is a bad trend that will allow a hatred to fester, and show up as a shooting somewhere, or worse. The debate needs to be public and open to keep things under control, and sadly (other than here), this is not happening.

The LA times now refuses to take letters to the editor from people who disagree that the climate change is human caused.

The point is all this limiting the debate, hiding data, or other such activity is harmful, and maybe more harmful than the change you are trying to prevent.

 

[beej67]

The science won't be "settled" until we have a predictive model. An ECS uncertainty range of 1.5 to 4.5 is not predictive. The only thing that's settled is that the globe is warming. Nothing is settled regarding the efficacy of any given policy suggestion, scientifically. And I need go no further than IPCC AR5 to back that statement up.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Now our government is stating that jack-o-lanterns cause global warming. I would guess not as bad as all those uneaten school lunches that the kids don't like.

 

[rconnor]

An uncertainty range between negative to very negative is not a reason to do nothing.

Maybe an analogy will help you understand. Let’s say you do a risk assessment/FMEA on a system. You determine the possible range of outcomes without preventative maintenance is somewhere between machine failure and catastrophic failure that puts workers lives at risk. The risk probability distribution function is also right skewed. Your analysis also shows that the longer you delay starting preventative maintenance, the worse the situation will likely get and the impacts are largely irreversible. With preventative maintenance, you still might have machine failure (especially if you delay) but you eliminate (or drastically reduce) the risk of a worker fatality. Furthermore, you do a cost/benefit analysis on the preventative maintenance option versus the “do nothing” option and determine that net result of preventative maintenance are orders of magnitude better than the “do nothing” option. Would you take this as evidence to not do preventative maintenance? Because that is exactly what you seem to be doing with climate science and the need for mitigation.

But let's extend the analogy. Some accountant, who hasn’t really read your report but just doesn’t like the cost of preventative maintenance, says that your report is all garbage. He’s got a gut feeling that the observed deterioration of the system must be due to something that the preventative maintenance won’t change. Now, he doesn’t have any evidence to support this but, nevertheless, he’s sure you must be wrong. He throws out a number of things he think it could be. You demonstrate, by providing research and data to support your point, that all of them are incompatible with the evidence.

The accountant then says, ignoring your response to his last statement, “Risk assessment exercises cannot prove anything. We don’t know for sure that this will be a problem!”. He points to the “better” end of the uncertainty range, with his other hand covering the “worse” end, saying “Look at these numbers! They don’t look so bad." You reply by stating that you cannot perform a risk assessment by picking which numbers you like and ignoring the rest, especially when there is higher probability on the “worse” end than the “better” end. You also add that even though the numbers the accountant pointed to are “better”, they still will lead to damages without preventative maintenance.

A marketing manager, who also hasn’t really read your report, accuses you of doctoring the results to increase your maintenance budget. He’s got nothing to base this on but he’s pretty sure about it! He requests that your computer, files and calculations all be seized. Upon seizure, nothing substantial to support his allegations is found. So he does the same thing to your co-worker. Again, nothing comes out of it. You state that a sister factory performed a similar assessment on a similar system and came to the same conclusion and so have reports from other manufacturers across the industry. The manager takes this as evidence that the conspiracy runs even deeper than he originally thought! “Why are the voices of managers being suppressed by the heavy handed maintenance engineers!”, the manager cries.

This is the same situation we face, just with the stakes much higher and wider reaching. It is irresponsible (and that’s putting it lightly) to ignore the upper end of the uncertainty range, doubt the mean and incorrectly promote the low end as evidence in support of the “do nothing” option (when it’s absolutely not). But it gets worse than that. On top of this, some will trivialize the damages of the “do nothing” option, hyperbolize the costs of mitigation and ignore the costs of adaptation. Others just reject everything as some big conspiracy (to what end, no one knows). We see this again and again in these discussions. No one actually addresses it, they just move on to repeat the same statements that do one of the above.

Let's talk about what's settled an what's not. The climate is changing and human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible. Frankly, this is as settled as most science gets. It’s why most “skeptics” have retreated to the position of “lukewarmists”, acknowledging that humans cause climate change but that “it won’t be bad”. However, while the exact impact into the future is certainly not settled, it ranges somewhere between negative to very negative. To think the extent of the changes could be trivial, as “lukewarmists” believe, is to completely reject the fact “it’s changed before” (see my last post) and the field of paleoclimatology.

Of course, there is a chance the science could be wrong. However, you don’t do risk assessment by praying that the analysis is wrong. You certainly don’t do a risk assessment by praying that the analysis is wrong when the amount, extent and quality of evidence in support of the analysis is overwhelming. You don’t stop performing a risk assessment because there is uncertainty. In fact, not only is uncertainty a non-removable aspect of a risk assessment (no uncertainty means it’s no longer a risk assessment and a well-trained monkey could make the decision) but uncertainty requires you to be more careful of the risks, not less. A proper assessment of the situation continually concludes that mitigation measures range somewhere between cost effective (at the "better" end of the uncertainty range) to economically, socially and morally imperative (at the "worse" end). To disagree is to pit yourself against the vast majority of the scientific community and scientific literature. You can find refuge in blogs, op-eds and (false) comparisons between yourself and Galileo but I don’t find that nearly as comforting as some do.

 

[rb1957]

nice story, my own goes along the lines "how much life/health insurance do you have ?"

"The climate is changing" agreed, but "and human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible." not agreed.

"It’s why most “skeptics” have retreated ..." ... so now you're an expert on skeptic opinions as well ?

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

 

[rconnor]

nice story, my own goes along the lines "how much life/health insurance do you have ?"

That's not a great analogy. You don't pay life and health insurance to reduce the risk of future health problems - it's not a preventative measure. In fact, life/health insurance is more like putting money into a global pot to help pay for adaptation. You could improve the analogy by changing it to "stop smoking and buy a gym membership".

You perform preventative maintenance to reduce the risk and cost of future maintenance issues and you perform mitigation measures to reduce the risk and cost of future climate change problems.

"The climate is changing" agreed, but "and human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible." not agreed.

I'm sorry but your opinion, without anything to support it, means very little in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

I should add that I see you as someone who seems to ask interesting, honest questions. Your someone who I enjoy engaging with. I'd gladly continue to try my best to address concerns you have, not as an attempt to change your opinion but to point you to the relevant information.

"It’s why most “skeptics” have retreated ..." ... so now you're an expert on skeptic opinions as well ?

I spend enough time reading "skeptic" blogs to get a feel for things (for example, I know that cranky's last few posts have just been regurgitating WUWT headlines). There's a large effort from the core of "skeptics" to distance themselves from the Sky Dragons Slayer fringe (AKA those that reject the greenhouse gas theory), heck even Anthony Watts does this. Now we're starting to see another shift where lukewarmists want to distance themselves from the core of "skeptics" that still reject the attribution aspect of climate change.

You're correct to say that it might not be "most" but you can start to see a trend.

 

[jhardy1]

@rb1957:

Re: "how much life/health insurance do you have ?"

Insurance is not really a good analogy for "preventive action". Insurance is essentially a bet that you hope you lose, and that you never "win" (never make a claim), because the payout will only go part-way to restoring the financial and other damages if the insured event arises. (Life insurance will pay your family in the event of your untimely death, but hopefully, your family would prefer that you had lived, rather than collect the payout.)

For most things that you insure, you also take preventive action - you service your car, you put smoke detectors in your house, and (maybe) you try to live a healthy lifestyle. This has a double benefit of reducing the probability of the insured event arising, and therefore lowers the cost of the insurance premiums. (Appropriate preventive measures are generally cheaper in the long-run than doing nothing, and then rectifying the failures.)

Returning to the topic: much of our current approach to climate change seems to be analogous to eating a 100% fast-food diet with no exercise, and having no health or life insurance. We are in denial about the "settled" science of the health impacts of diet and exercise, and we are making no financial provision for the highly probable outcomes.

If you want to pursue the insurance analogy - at the very least, we should be putting billions annually into an "insurance fund" which will pay for the probable outcomes of our current inaction. However, a much better plan would be to take some action now (start exercising and start eating a healthy diet), while also investing in some health / life insurance.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[beej67]

An uncertainty range between negative to very negative is not a reason to do nothing.

It's also not a reason to implement martial law, and according to a wide range of answers within that uncertainty range, the only policy to stop AGW is global martial law. Links above.

We should definitely be doing something. We should be preparing like crazy to live on a warmer planet.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[SkipVought]

I wouldn't be trusting the accounting report if the past reports had been fudged, scary, logical, fanciful, accounting reasons not withstanding. I'd fire the lot of them, degrees, acclaim, reputations not withstanding.

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

 

[vzeos]

rconnor:
I'm not a climate scientist, but a couple of years ago I started to put together some spreadsheets of annual average temperatures and population growth for three population centers for which long term temperature data are available (New York, Chicago and Baltimore) (see attached file.) My reasoning is that if climate change is caused by CO2 generated by human activity, then most of that CO2 must have been generated in population centers, due to manufacturing plants, power plants, automobile congestion et c.. Therefore, the local CO2 emissions should cause the local annual temperatures to increase and the long term trend line of annual average temperatures should show some correspondence to the trend line of population growth for the same period. I believe the data I put together do show some correspondence.
Any Thoughts?

 

[rconnor]

Therefore, the local CO2 emissions should cause the local annual temperatures to increase

Not exactly. CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas, meaning that it tends to disperse rather quickly and evenly throughout the atmosphere. So local CO2 emissions blend into the global emissions making the local impact of local emissions rather mute (note this is not necessary true for all pollutants and aerosols). Furthermore, regional impacts are more likely do to regional feedbacks than how much CO2 that region is pumping out. I would expect there is little causation between local emissions and local temperatures. Any correlation is likely due to local emission trends matching global emission trends.

the long term trend line of annual average temperatures should show some correspondence to the trend line of population growth for the same period

I don’t exactly agree. If a city’s population stalled or declined, I would expect a minor change in the temperature trend, for similar reasons as stated above. The global change in CO2 forcing plus or minus local feedbacks would be much more impactful on local temperature than population (or local emissions).

That’s actually what I believe we see in your plots. All three cities populations peaked around 1950 and then declined until about 1990, while the temperatures showed little change in warming trends. Now, it’s important to understand when we are talking about such small areas, regional feedbacks can be very impactful. So we need to be careful about making generalizations based off regional data.

Moving away from regional data and analysis, global population does show a correlation with global temperature trends. This is because there is a strong correlation between global population and global emissions. However, global temperatures are likely more intrinsically tied to total global emissions than global population. For example, significant reductions in emissions per capita would slow temperature warming even if populations continued to rise, so long as the total carbon emitted was significantly reducing. Conversely, less people emitting more per capita, such that the total emissions were rising, would cause temperatures to continue to rise. Population and even emissions per capita are much less impactful metrics to global temperatures than total emissions. Hence why total emissions (whether that be emissions from energy generation or loss of sinks due to deforestation), not population, is the key to addressing climate change.

 

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...olossal-waste-us-taxpayer-money/?intcmp=hpbt1

Not climate related, but an example nonetheless of why a significant portion of us don't feel comfortable with the *government saving us yet again from a list of perceived ills that continues ad nauseam. The *government, time and again, has proven it's ineptitude, gross negligence, utter detachment from reality, and attitude of deception and condescension. Simply put, what basis do we have to trust them?

*government: including advisors, think tanks, providers of research for political ends, PAC's, lobbyists, et al. I simply choose the word government as a broad definition to describe those who would seek to wield influence in the development of further governance.

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.

 

[beej67]

Therefore, the local CO2 emissions should cause the local annual temperatures to increase and the long term trend line of annual average temperatures should show some correspondence to the trend line of population growth for the same period. I believe the data I put together do show some correspondence.

Actually it's the opposite. CO2 concentrations are fairly uniform because the weather does a very good job of mixing the atmosphere up within the troposphere, so you're very likely to see CO2 concentrations of New York be pretty similar to those out in the middle of the Atlantic. You can google graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the mid troposphere and the higher concentrations generally follow the jet stream.

On the other hand, if your spreadsheets indicated a relationship between population and warming in those city centers, then that would show that localized warming due to land use changes is a significant effect.

The IPCC claims that it's not, because they only want one boogy man. They think paving the planet while leaving CO2 concentration fixed would cool the planet off.

Moving away from regional data and analysis, global population does show a correlation with global temperature trends. This is because there is a strong correlation between global population and global emissions.

Please be honest here. There is also a very strong correlation between population and land use changes. In pure isolation of other effects, I could plot land use changes vs global warming and draw trend lines that are probably just as correlated as the same exercise with CO2 in isolation of other effects. I could also perform the exercise with raw human population, and get just as good a correlation.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

So if we are concerned that increased human population is the problem, why have we proposed, or done nothing to that effect?

Fix the problem, not put a bandaid on CO2.

If human population is the true problem, why are we feeding the hungry? Or paying people to be unemployed?

Because we care, a little. This whole scheme is not to fix the problem, but to tax the rich, and middle class.

The difference between fixing the real problem and fixing a political problem.

 

[rconnor]

There is also a very strong correlation between population and land use changes. In pure isolation of other effects, I could plot land use changes vs global warming and draw trend lines that are probably just as correlated as the same exercise with CO2 in isolation of other effects. I could also perform the exercise with raw human population, and get just as good a correlation.

Absolutely. Population (A), land use changes (B) and CO2 emissions (C) would all track global temperatures (D) very well. If A is correlated to B and C, then B and C will appear to be correlated as well. And if C is correlated to D, then A and B will appear correlated to D as well.

What you would need is a physical mechanism to demonstrate causation. There’s a vast amount of evidence to support C strongly causing D. Unfortunately, having a hunch does not count as a physical mechanism for B strongly causing D.

So if we are concerned that increased human population is the problem, why have we proposed, or done nothing to that effect?

Hence why total emissions (whether that be emissions from energy generation or loss of sinks due to deforestation), not population, is the key to addressing climate change.

I’m not sure you’re reading the same thread we are cranky…

 

[cranky108]

If you expect me to agree with you, then you are mistaken.

I disagree with your conclusion, however you got there. And I'm not talking about the science.

The science always sounds good, until one gets into the details. Fine, it's not perfect, why hide stuff.

But the conclusion that more socialism, taxes, is going to solve this. I don't believe.
The government has just become too good at lying to believe there data has any merit.

The issue is not what the government must make us change things, it's that we must decide to make those changes for ourselves.
The government only makes things worse, and can't even manage to balance there money budget. And you expect them to balance a carbon budget?

We need to see that the wild dreams of the university professors are not real. We need to be more down to earth, and to sell it to the people. And the answers are not universal, but regional.

 

[SkipVought]

Science does not say anything or arrive at conclusions. People do. And each one assesses the data and arrives at conclusions based on their World View. This is why a progressive and a conservative might observe the identical body of data and come to radically different conclusions as to how we got to a particular point in time and what valid options ought to be addressed as a result.

There are attempts to squash the debate with appeals to "settled science" which is a statement that says, "My philosophical conclusions are true" (and yours are false by default). This comes down to a clash of world views, plain and simple. Since we don't think very clearly in our society today, the side with the best demagogue will sway the masses. Or they can make slick "truth" movies.

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

 

[IRstuff]

Likewise, there's an attempt to squash debate with a continual drumbeat of "socialism, taxes," and the continued claim that everything is founded on a massive government conspiracy to suborn scientific research and thought. The "government" in the form of the NSA, with its secrecy, can't even keep the likes of Edward Snowden from blowing the whistle, yet, no one in the ranks of the so-called "alarmist" community has come forth to blow the whistle on this conspiracy, even though their mercenary tendencies could be so richly rewarded by the likes of the Koch brothers?

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[beej67]

Absolutely. Population (A), land use changes (B) and CO2 emissions (C) would all track global temperatures (D) very well. If A is correlated to B and C, then B and C will appear to be correlated as well. And if C is correlated to D, then A and B will appear correlated to D as well.

What you would need is a physical mechanism to demonstrate causation. There’s a vast amount of evidence to support C strongly causing D. Unfortunately, having a hunch does not count as a physical mechanism for B strongly causing D.

Thankfully I don't need a hunch. I can see it from space. Here's my home town:

Yet the IPCC says urban heat islands cool the planet.

*shrug*

They'll figure out their error sooner or later. I just hope we haven't gone to global socialist martial law by then.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

So you believe the 3% of the land surface (source), so 0.87% of the entire surface, being converted into urban areas is responsible for a considerable amount of global warming? You think that urbanization is responsible for a considerable amount of the 9.94x10^22J increase in OHC from 2005-2014? That's about as wrong as your hunch that nuclear bombs were responsible for a considerable amount of global warming.