Sign in to follow this  
StringJunky

Climate change: Fresh doubt over global warming 'pause'

Recommended Posts

A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research.
Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century.
But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades.
With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears.
The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years".
But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant.
Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models.
The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems. Read more (BBC news) >>

 



 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what's controversial about this, and it's not the first study to show it

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/

 

There are other articles pointing out that the "pause" was only looking at air temperature, while a vast majority of the heat goes into the oceans. All that was happening was that a little more went into the oceans and less into the air, temporarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure what's controversial about this, and it's not the first study to show it

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/

 

There are other articles pointing out that the "pause" was only looking at air temperature, while a vast majority of the heat goes into the oceans. All that was happening was that a little more went into the oceans and less into the air, temporarily.

I suppose they are adopting a neutral stance in this article, which is what the BBC attempts to do anyway, and that's why they call it controversial; the research rattles the feathers of the deniers.

 

I didn't put it up because it's "controversial". I put it up because I thought it might clear up the problems/interpretation with the data readings that some here might not be aware of.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... the research rattles the feathers of the deniers.

 

Do deniers have metal feathers? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose they are adopting a neutral stance in this article, which is what the BBC attempts to do anyway, and that's why they call it controversial; the research rattles the feathers of the deniers.

 

 

Ah, so it's just a case of false balance, i.e. bad journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah, so it's just a case of false balance, i.e. bad journalism.

Whatever the evidence, a journalist - unless expressly stating an opinion in the relevant place of a paper or website etc - shouldn't adopt a position... ideally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the evidence, a journalist - unless expressly stating an opinion in the relevant place of a paper or website etc - shouldn't adopt a position... ideally.

 

 

Isn't calling it "controversial" a position? It's certainly not backed up by facts. I doubt any scientists were surprised, since they've heard of conservation of energy. It was just a matter of finding it. There's new data but not new science.

 

No, this is an example of false balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Isn't calling it "controversial" a position? It's certainly not backed up by facts. I doubt any scientists were surprised, since they've heard of conservation of energy. It was just a matter of finding it. There's new data but not new science.

 

No, this is an example of false balance.

OK. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What caused the temperature dip between 2013-14 (if I have read it correctly)? Can we influence the dip by replicating conditions in a model system?

_93269532_hausfather3hr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocean currents likely (el nino / la nina)

natural variation, basically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Seeking to attribute short term variability to specific climate processes - and 15 years is short term - is reasonable. (The largest component of that variability has been ENSO, an ocean oscillation between warm water accumulating at and near the surface that warms the air masses over it and warm surface water being forced deeper and being displaced by upwelling colder water that cools the atmosphere). Calling it a pause in the rate of global warming is not so reasonable; ocean heat content which more directly measures the underlying changes from AGW continued to rise during that period, without any such pause. Whilst scientists may have attempted to explain what they mean by "pause" (a period of surface temperature variability) it was wrongly interpreted as some kind of admission that warming stopped during this period. With climate science so politicised it's unfortunate that choice of terminology can be so significant. Calling it a "pause" was a mistake and helped perpetuate the illusion that GHG driven AGW is something erratic, that comes and goes rather than being a persistent underlying influence which is overlayed by natural and unnatural variability.

 

Temperatures adjusted for known influence of El Nino Southern Oscillation (with no change to long term trend) -

 

post-115441-0-04962100-1483658047_thumb.png

 

Ocean Heat Content -

 

post-115441-0-33487100-1483658253_thumb.jpg

 

Global warming didn't pause or stop at all.

Edited by Ken Fabian
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link here's the abstract and the link to the full text is Here:

 

 

Abstract

Sea surface temperature (SST) records are subject to potential biases due to changing instrumentation and measurement practices. Significant differences exist between commonly used composite SST reconstructions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), the Hadley Centre SST data set (HadSST3), and the Japanese Meteorological Agency’s Centennial Observation-Based Estimates of SSTs (COBE-SST) from 2003 to the present. The update from ERSST version 3b to version 4 resulted in an increase in the operational SST trend estimate during the last 19 years from 0.07° to 0.12°C per decade, indicating a higher rate of warming in recent years. We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined. These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research.
Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century.
But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades.
With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears.
The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years".
But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant.
Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models.
The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems. Read more (BBC news) >>

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to agree with the researchers from Noaa and the journal Science Advances, and I'd have to go on to say that the runaway greenhouse effect is probably at work here. Well we still have forty years to put the Lazarus program in effect...... Just gotta build NASA a huge underground base..... Only we'll be running from heat and pollution instead of blight. Well then again they do pretty much the same to our food supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

RiceAWay's hijack has been split off to a new thread of its own. This thread is discussing a new specific report - it is not the place for general discussion / blanket denial of the phenomenon.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - and please try to stick to the topic. If you think your response might be at a tangent or off-topic then open a new thread

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just become aware of this new angle to the story:

  • The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
  • It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
  • America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
  • The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Edited by Memammal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the Daily Mail being a dishonest bit of right-wing trash is a new angle! :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Spot on an dealt with here:

 

 

A story by David Rose of the British tabloid Daily Mail falsely alleged that researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “manipulated global warming data” in order to “dupe” world leaders into agreeing to provisions of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In reality, the NOAA report’s finding that there was no slowdown in the rate of global warming has since been independently verified by other experts, and it’s the Daily Mail story -- and the GOP politicians and right-wing media outlets like Breitbart News championing it -- that are distorting climate science to score political points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another demolition of the Daily Fail's lies here:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

 

it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to AFP, Wikipedia editors have now voted to ban the use of articles from The Daily Mail citing the newspaper's "reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Good riddance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the Daily Mail being a dishonest bit of right-wing trash is a new angle! :)

Dude you see how they blamed that one suicide thing on a band because it's music somehow 'caused' suicide? Jeez. I remember I used to read the stuff until then, just because my parents read the daily mail and I liked it.

Edited by DanTrentfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I hate it so much, despite their evil agenda they manage to insinuate their way into so many homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I hate it so much, despite their evil agenda they manage to insinuate their way into so many homes.

Yeah F&!@ the daily mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this