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]

-------Part 1: Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?--------
The most common (mis)use of the “pause” is, as one prominent poster on these forums said,:
“With the last 16 years of nearly constant average temperatures and steadily increasing CO2, in any other field the data would cause the whole AGW hypotheses to be put into the bin along with eugenics and the earth-centric universe.”

While we all wish it could be that simple, it simply is not. This mentality misses many (if not all) important points necessary to understand the “pause” and climate change in general. Here I will outline the 4 main concepts: 1) surface temperatures do not tell the full story, 2) internal variability, mainly from ENSO events, can greatly influence short-term trends, 3) as new data comes in, the “pause” looks weaker and weaker and 4) statistically, the “pause” lies somewhere between being extremely insignificant to outright non-existent.

1) Surface Temperatures Do Not Tell the Full Story
Surface temperatures are certainly not the only metric that exhibits signs of climate change (see my post in this thread at 16 Jan 14 01:20 for ~10 examples of other metrics). It’s important to understand that only 2.3% of the increased heat due to radiative imbalance into the atmosphere, while most (93.4%) goes into the oceans (AR4 5.2.2.4). This makes ocean heat content (OHC) an incredibly important metric when discussing if the earth is (still) gaining energy or not.

NOAA tracks OHC at the “surface” (0-700m) and deep ocean (0-2000m). The results clearly show that OHC has increased throughout the “pause” (NOAA OHC data available here). From 1998 to 2014, 0-700m OHC has increased 8.96x10^22 J (208% increase) and from 2005 (when ARGO was fully deployed) to 2014, 0-2000m OHC has increased 9.94x10^22J (97% increase). This conclusively demonstrates that Earth has still gained energy during the “pause” and climate change hasn’t “stopped”.
[image

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

]

In a previous discussion on this topic, a poster stated “but it is a little hard to get excited about 0-2000m data when the /average/ depth of oceanic water is 3700m”. However, abyssal OHC (below 2000m) has also been analyzed. Purkey and Johnson 2010, Kouketsu et al 2011, Johnson et al 2007 all concluded that abyssal OHC has increased during the recent period. Simply put, OHC, at all depths, has continued to increase, demonstrating that climate change never magically went away during the “pause”.

Furthermore, temporary slowdowns in surface warming are usually coupled with increases in deep OHC. Balmaseda et al 2013, Meehl et al 2013 and Meehl et al 2011 all examined this relationship and concluded that during “pause”-like periods, surface OHC increased at a slower rate and deep OHC increased at a faster rate. From Meehl et al 2011:
[image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hiatus.png

]
Also see:
- England et al 2014
- Balmaseda et al 2013
- Abraham et al 2013
- Levitus et al 2013

This is very much so consistent with the physical mechanism of La Nina events - where warm water is pushed further away from the surface, due to strengthening trade wins, thus reducing surface temperatures. More on this in the next point.

2) Internal Variability Can Greatly Impact Short Term Trends
While increases in atmospheric CO2 have been responsible for the long-term warming, short-term trends can still be impacted by internal variability. ENSO events appear to be one of the largest contributor to internal variability. In brief, ENSO relates to the weakening (during El Nino) and strengthening (during La Nina) of Pacific equatorial trade winds. During El Nino years, when trade winds are weak, warm water that usually pools in the West Pacific moves closer to the surface, where it interacts with the Atmosphere more readily, and is transported eastward. During La Nina, the strong trade winds cause warm water to pool deeper in the Western Pacific and causes stronger upwelling of cold water in the Eastern Pacific. While the impact of ENSO events is strong, it is also temporary. El Nino’s typically last for 9 months to ~12 month. La Nina’s can last for 1 to 3 years.

The typical period selected for the “pause” is 1998 to 2013. Interestingly, 1998 was the strongest El Nino event in recorded history and 2013 was a recovery from two consecutive La Nina events (source). Needless to say, the trend of the “pause” was highly influenced by ENSO events. It’s a little bit like being on an all-burger diet for the past month. Except you took your first weigh-in after three weeks, in work boots and a heavy jacket, right after a big meal and then your last weigh-in at the end of the month, in just your boxers, right after doing a 20 km jog in a sweat suit. Between the two weigh-ins, you might not have gained that much weight but this is because of the short-term “variable” effects; you still gained 20 pounds over the course of the month. It would be absurd to claim that your all-burger diet was “good for your health” as any fair comparison of your weight would clearly show a steady rise in weight.

The simplest way to do a fair comparison is to ensure you are looking at a long enough trend (say 30 years) such that the impact of short term variability is minimized. However, one way to do a fair comparison for shorter term trends is to compare ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, El Nino years to El Nino years and La Nina years to La Nina years. By doing so, you are eliminating most of the impact of such events, so you can see if there is an underlying warming trend. When you do so, you see that the trend during the “pause” is similar to the 30 year trend and the trend since 1950 for ENSO neutral years, El Nino years and La Nina years (ENSO state data from NOAA, temperature data from NASA GIST). Furthermore, this directly disproves the idea that ENSO is responsible for warming. ENSO can impact year-to-year variance by switching ENSO states but it cannot impact the long-term trend in ENSO neutral years (or El Nino or La Nina years). To put this in perspective, the 1995 El Nino (the hottest year on record at the time) was colder than any 21st century La Nina (or any 21st century year for that matter). Below is an image from NASA illustrating the steady rise in similar ENSO state years.
[image

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/gistemp_nino_s.jpg

]

However, ENSO is not the only form of natural variability. Volcanic activity can temporarily cool the planet. During the period of the “pause”, no major volcanic eruptions have occurred. However, Santer et al 2015 indicates that smaller volcanic eruptions have increased and have a had a slight cooling impact on the planet. Furthermore, solar activity has been in decline since ~1960 and the 11-cylcle peak was near 1998. While the solar change has minimal impact (see this article from NASA as an example) on changes in global temperature, it has introduced a slight cooling effect to the “pause” period. Lastly, anthropogenic aerosols have been increasing faster than predicted. This too adds a slight cooling effect to the “pause” period.

Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 examined all of these impacts on temperature trends. They found that when you remove the short term noise caused by internal variability, the underlying warming trend caused by CO2 stands out very clear – even throughout the “pause”.
[image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Fig5.jpg

]

And yes, internal variability can also work to make short-term trends look bigger than they actually are. This is exactly what was noticed in Rahmstorf et al. 2007. They found that the trend from 1992 to 2006 was 0.28 C/decade, much larger than the long-term trend of 0.16 C/decade. Rather than promoting sensationalist reasons for the warming (like many “skeptics” have been doing with the “pause”), the authors concluded, very rationally:

The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system.

The situation is well articulated by Grant Foster, of Foster and Rahmstorf, in this article on his blog.

So while internal variability can have a large impact on short-term trends, when you look at long-term trends or relevant comparisons, you quickly see the CO2 warming trend has not magically gone away. This is why with 2014 and 2015 temperature data, the “pause” is already disappearing.

3) The Newest Data Continues to Undermine the “Pause”
The “pause” has been a rather quiet argument as of late. No doubt this is partly because 2014 and 2015 temperature data have put those that rely on the “pause” in a bit of hot water. 2014 was the hottest year on record for most temperature data sets and 2015 is looking to smash the 2014 record (especially if the El Nino fully develops). Below is a graph of NASA GISS and NOAA data, where the 2015 data is the “year-to-date” to June 2015 (image from here:
[image

http://s30.postimg.org/bv2bqbz35/June_2015_NASA_NOAA_temperature.jpg

]

Perhaps the paper that has received the most attention in 2015 (so far), especially on “skeptic” blogs (that are still freaking out about it), was Karl et al 2015. Correcting biases, primarily in sea surface temperature data, the new data set found that the 2000-2014 trend was 0.116 C/decade compared to 0.113 C/decade from 1950-1999 (see the graph from the paper here – circles = old value, square = with corrections and triangles = with kriging in-fill (like Cowtan and Way 2013)). While I do not wish to start a Karl et al 2015 flame war, I will say that the actual adjustments were very small (see below) which (1) minimizes the screams of “fixing the data” and (2) demonstrates just how flimsy the “pause” was to begin with.
[image

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/bl.../06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-05-at-11.28.40-AM.png

]

But the “pause” was already hurting well before 2015. Cowtan and Way 2013 discussed how the sparse coverage in the arctic, which is warming most rapidly, leads to a cooling bias in most data sets. Using kriging to fill in the gaps, they produced an updated version of HadCRUT data that covered much more of the globe than before. The results was that the 1998-2013 trends were much more in line with long-term trends, thus weakening the “pause”. They have recently updated their research and have published a more recent paper in 2014.

It’s not just updates to temperature data sets that show the planet has been steadily warming. Durack et al 2014 found that upper OHC had previously been underestimated by 2.2 to 7.1x10^22 J, putting yet another nail in the “pause” ‘s coffin. All of this research indicated that not only was the “pause” not indicative of a slowdown in energy accumulation but that there really was not a significant “pause” in global temperatures.

The fact that a few minor changes to data sets or a few more years worth of data could invalidate the “pause” speaks to how weak of an argument it was in the first place, both physically (as demonstrated in points 1 and 2) and statistically (as will be shown in point 4).

4) The “Pause” is not Statistically Significant.
As has been made evident from the previous 3 points, the “pause” was always an incredibly flimsy argument that required carefully selecting a short-term period and completely ignoring any other context. Upon investigating it in proper context, it immediately falls apart. So, a very natural question is, “was the “pause” ever statistically significant?” The clear answer is no.

This point was demonstrated by two recent papers. The first is Cahill et al 2015. They highlight the whole situation surrounding the “pause” quite well by stating:

While close to 50 papers have already been published on the 'hiatus' or 'pause' (Lewandowsky et al, in press), the important question of whether there has been a detectable change in the warming trend (rather than just variability in short-term trends due to stochastic temperature variations) has received little attention.

Co-author Stefan Rahmstorf wrote a blog post discussing the concept in detail. The Cahill et al paper used change point analysis to search for discontinuities in temperature trends that would give credence to the term “pause”. They found nothing to support it.
[image

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DH8BXjDDf...os/s400/change+points+surface+temperature.png

]

…no evidence of any detectable change in the global warming trend since ~1970. We conclude that the term ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ cannot be statistically justified.

The second is Foster and Abraham 2015. Like the first paper, co-author Grant Foster wrote a blog post detailing the topic. They focused on 1970-present data and tried various test specifically designed to find such a trend change. They concluded:

A barrage of statistical tests was applied to global surface temperature time series to search for evidence of any significant departure from a linear increase at constant rate since 1970. In every case, the analysis not only failed to establish a trend change with statistical significance, it failed by a wide margin.

Part 1 Conclusion (TL;DR)
In the first part, we examined the question, “does the “pause” suggest that that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?” This can be translated to say, “does the fact that CO2 has gone up while temperatures have not risen as fast as previous periods mean that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?”. We can assuredly answer “no” to this question based on the following:
[ul 1][li]OHC has continued to rise throughout this period. In fact, deep OHC rises faster during slower periods of slower surface temperature warming. This means that there is no significant reduction in the rate of energy increase on the planet, just that it is going into different places.[/li]
[li]The perceived slowdown in surface warming is due to the period being heavily biased by internal variability. The period started with the strongest El Nino on record which then transitioned into a La Nina dominated period. When examining ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, La Nina years to La Nina years or El Nino years to El Nino years, all three show trends very similar to the long-term trends. This implies there is a consistent warming trend through the “pause”.[/li]
[li]2014 was the hottest year on record for most data sets and 2015 looks like it will smash the 2014 record. Even when ignoring all the other relevant points discussed here, the “pause” quickly disappears when incorporating the latest temperature data. Furthermore, update OHC data, better arctic coverage and other improvements to temperature data sets all additionally undermine the concept of the “pause”.[/li]
[li]Not only does the “pause” mean very little in a physical sense, perhaps most damning, is that the “pause” never existed in a statistically significant sense. Basically, the “pause” was born out of eye-balling graphs and blindly comparing temperature trends over different periods. However, the moment that you apply some statistical rigor to the “pause”, you realize it was never statistical significant and, therefore, meaningful in the first place.[/li]
[li]A nice 6-minute video that summarizes most of the research by Kevin Cowtan (of Cowtan and Way).[/li][/ul]

The “pause” does not, in any way, suggest that climate change has stopped nor does it suggest that climate change may not be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The “pause”, which doesn’t even exist in a statistically significant sense, does not put the anthropogenic climate change theory into question. It should be noted that all the points provided are largely independent of each other and all, independently, demonstrate that the “pause” is simply not a valid argument against the anthropogenic climate change theory. Any attempt to salvage the “pause” as valid needs to clearly disprove all of the points provided.

Furthermore, with a proper understand of the science surrounding the “pause” (or lack thereof), the recent discrepancy between observed temperatures and modeled temperatures makes much more sense. Part 2 will incorporate the lessons learned from Part 1 and discuss the impact on examining climate models. However, as there is already a lot of information to digest, I feel we should have a discussion on Part 1 prior to me posting Part 2. Please feel free to ask questions about the physics surrounding the “pause”. All model related questions should be withheld until after I post Part 2.

 

[rb1957]

"The “pause” does not, in any way, suggest that climate change has stopped nor does it suggest that climate change may not be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions." ... completely agree; the pause is a complete non sequitur as far as ACC goes.

IMHO, the main point about the pause, or "pause", is ... consider the global temperature graphs we were shown in the 90s, they were pretty much monotonic and as such predicted dire doom. But the real world intercepted these predictions and something different happened. This then gives rise to the question "how to believe these models ?" ... oops, a model question ... should've waiting for part 2.

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

 

[cranky108]

The term 'green house gases' seems to imply that there existance acts like a green house. And as anyone with a green house knows, it does not heat up as much on a cloudy day.
Note that the solar cycle have been rather calm over the past several years, so maybe the solar clouds have been causing a shadow on your warming.

So why are you making it so complicated? Less sun, less warming.

The assumption that the sun is a constant is not only wrong, it is dumb.

 

[IRstuff]

"Note that the solar cycle have been rather calm over the past several years, so maybe the solar clouds have been causing a shadow on your warming."

OMG, it's varying all over the place:

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rb1957]

and after a 5 month "pause", we're back at it ...

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

 

[beej67]

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.





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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[IRstuff]

As engineers, we ought to know, just from the models we use, that no model is "absolutely predictive," so to say, "we were told," seems to be disingenuous indignation, since we already know that could never have been plausible. The question, as with models we work with, is whether the models are "good enough," and there's no evidence that they're not.

I haven't seen any demonstration that the "pause" or any declines in the time series aren't just noise. Why not pick the period from 1992 to 1998 as an example of an "acceleration?" Seems to me that if the "pause" proves anything, then the "acceleration" should likewise prove something.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[beej67]

That the last models absolutely were not good enough should qualify at least as some evidence that today's models might not be good enough.

That the climate sensitivity number, which is the money number in the IPCC reports, continues to diverge with each new IPCC report instead of converging, should also be evidence that today's models might not be good enough. Today's models certainly aren't any more "sure" than the last ones were, who all unanimously missed the pause.

Both of these are evidence, at least to me, that we should take care in utilizing current modeling to make decisions that fundamentally alter the world economy on which everyone's very lives are hinged.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JNieman]

Being wrong in the past does not preclude anyone from being right in the future. To think otherwise would have us still living in caves wondering if stone would ever truly replace the wooden points of our spears.

The information/data/projections require a fair amount of scrutiny, of course, but they also deserve the absence of biases.

 

[beej67]

Being wrong in the past does not preclude anyone from being right in the future.

Of course it doesn't. But being definitively wrong in the past is evidence that it's possible to be wrong in the present. To think otherwise would likewise have us living in caves etc etc.

I would think that we should not be hanging our hats on a climate sensitivity number (the money number) where each successive attempt at arriving at that number through modeling has shown the models diverging away from each other, instead of converging on the "right" answer. That would be the first, very bare minimum amount of scrutiny I'd like to see before implementing vast, world changing policy decisions that could impact the global economy.

If the drastic policy measures being discussed related to this science are to be implemented, they will be the most egregiously impactful policy decisions ever made based on science, in the history of mankind. And therefore, the most important thing to get right in the history of mankind. Yet the IPCC estimates of mean climate sensitivity are off by a factor of what, 4? Depending on the model you pick. They're all over the place.

So the fact that we have been wrong before should be on everyone's mind with this stuff. That's the importance of the pause.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[ZeroSeq]

Regarding models:
Reading David Simpson's blog "Computer Models Never Prove Anything" from 2010 provides a well articulated thesis that is seldom found in the mainstream "science" debate. As actual measurements are shown to be increasingly divorced from original model estimates, this is becoming more evident.

Regarding everything else:
I have yet to see an acceptable argument against any of the following points:
1. FACT: The direct effect of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is well-established physics and has been known for over a century.
2. FACT: Government funded climate "models" produce a majority of the positive feedback greenhouse effect by using an estimated sensitivity factor that has been shown to be far above that actually observed.
3. FACT: There is NO evidence whatsoever that conclusively shows an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is DIRECTLY linked to catastrophic violent weather, reduced crop yields, massive sea level rises, or any other commonly assumed result of our emissions.

I'm very open to being proven wrong about any of the above points so that I may shift my mindset.

Source:

https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case

However, I believe it to be naive to think that the global warming debate is actually about the science. It is a political debate plain and simple.

 

[SkipVought]

"It is a political debate plain and simple."

The emperor has no clothes!

Skip,

_{Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!}

 

[ZeroSeq]

If the climate change activists really cared about pollution and the well being of our planet, livestock and animal production would be on the forefront of the debate.

 

[cranky108]

From what I have seen, the largest spikes in electric usage are water pumping, air conditioner usage, and holiday lighting.
However you will note that none of the regulations go after those directly. Meaning a fear of direct voter conferentation.

It seems to be easy to provide regulations and taxes on energy companies, so it does not appear to be the governments actions, but the actions of the energy companies.

 

[rb1957]

... making clean water available would be high on my list.


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

 

[beej67]

2. FACT: Government funded climate "models" produce a majority of the positive feedback greenhouse effect by using an estimated sensitivity factor that has been shown to be far above that actually observed.

This is the thing that bugs me.

If you have to twist your CO2 sensitivity dial triple the measured amount to get the model to calibrate properly, then that's a pretty good indicator that CO2 is actually only a third of the problem, and the other two thirds are things you're not modeling that are merely correlated with CO2. Which, as luck has it, is correlated with human population growth, with which many other possible AGW sources are also correlated.

I've yet to see a model handle land cover properly. The IPCC stuff thinks that all other things being equal, the earth would be cooler with its current land cover than the land cover 100 years ago. This is simply wrong. Figure out how and why that's wrong, and we'll be well on our way to figuring out why the IPCC is having such problems narrowing down the CO2 climate sensitivity estimates.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[IRstuff]

"2. FACT: Government funded climate "models" produce a majority of the positive feedback greenhouse effect by using an estimated sensitivity factor that has been shown to be far above that actually observed."

How is this a fact? Where are the peer reviewed results? Since the trend for the last 50 yrs is in "fact" upward, the argument that the predictions are "far above" the measurements is a red herring if the observed trend will already get us into trouble.

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,

The second point is not referring directly to the temperature, it is the estimated sensitivity value that is above what is observed.

Here is an explanation of this phenomenon (@ 22:30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

 

[beej67]

I was under the impression that the widely accepted direct effect of CO2 was a sensitivity of about 1.1 degrees celsius per doubling, IRStuff, and most of the banter in the last few IPCC reports was what that number "should be" when dampening and feedback effects are included. That is, as they say, the core of the argument.

IPCC AR4 said:

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2oC to 4.5C with a best estimate of about 3oC and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5C. Values higher than 4.5oC cannot be excluded.”

IPCC AR5 said:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)

...but then curiously left out a "best estimate" entirely, and blamed the variability of the models for why they chose not to give a best estimate at all. Nevermind that they revised it down, but then made it sound like things were getting worse. When folks try to calculate ECS with less reliance on model calibration, and focus on providing legitimate error bands on their predictions, they land at an expected value that's more like 1.64 C:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/

..which ain't all that far off of the 1.1 C we'd presume from straight chemistry.

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.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com