Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Climate change: Fresh doubt over global warming 'pause'


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,522 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 January 2017 - 09:45 AM

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) >>

 



 

 


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#2 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 35,221 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:00 AM

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

 

https://www.scientif...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.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#3 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,522 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:05 AM

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

 

https://www.scientif...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, 5 January 2017 - 11:08 AM.

  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#4 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 262 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:08 AM

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

 

Do deniers have metal feathers?  :-)


  • 0

κατθάνοισα δὲ κείσῃ οὐδέ ποτα / μναμοσύνα σέθεν /  ἔσσετ' οὐδὲ †ποκ'†ὔστερον· οὐ / γὰρ πεδέχῃς βρόδων / τῶν ἐκ Πιερίας· 


#5 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,522 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:10 AM

 

Do deniers have metal feathers?  :-)

Yeah! :) I should have said "cage".


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#6 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 35,221 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:23 AM

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.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#7 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,522 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:33 AM

 

 

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. 


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#8 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 35,221 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 5 January 2017 - 12:13 PM

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. 


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#9 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,522 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 January 2017 - 01:13 PM

 

 

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. :)


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#10 jimmydasaint

jimmydasaint

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 799 posts
  • LocationFarnham Royal, Bucks

Posted 5 January 2017 - 09:34 PM

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


  • 0
88.2% of Statistics are made up on the spot
-- Vic Reeves

#11 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 16,928 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 5 January 2017 - 10:13 PM

Ocean currents likely (el nino / la nina)
natural variation, basically
  • 0

#12 Ken Fabian

Ken Fabian

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 90 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 5 January 2017 - 11:19 PM

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) -

image.png

Ocean Heat Content -

image.jpg

Global warming didn't pause or stop at all.

Edited by Ken Fabian, 5 January 2017 - 11:20 PM.

  • 0

#13 ecoli

ecoli

    murderator

  • Moderators
  • 8,648 posts
  • LocationNY, NY

Posted 6 January 2017 - 03:45 AM

Fyi, one of the authors of the paper is answering questions in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.c..._warming_never/


  • 0
[14:02] <Sato> I
[14:02] <Sato> want
[14:02] <Sato> Schroedinger
[14:04] == Schroedingers_hat [~matt@CPE-121-222-209-157.lnse1.woo.bigpond.net.au] has joined #sfn

#14 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,522 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 6 January 2017 - 04:30 AM

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.

  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#15 DanTrentfield

DanTrentfield

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 92 posts
  • LocationCydonia, Mars

Posted 11 January 2017 - 12:13 AM

 

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.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users