From Northeastern University via Eurekalert, and the department of modeling for 10 million dollars, this seems to be all they could come up with. Nature has a way however, of taking the the best laid plans and rendering them moot. I don’t think they’ve noted ‘the pause’ yet. There’s no paper listed, nor data references, nothing, making it one of the worst press releases I’ve seen in awhile. The press release upstream at the University is hardly any better, citing the 97% consensus as if it has anything to do with extremes modeling, but at least they gave a link to the paper where Eurekalert didn’t.
Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay
In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variability in temperature extremes. For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest temperatures will likely rise, those averages will also tend to fall within a wider range of potential high and low temperate extremes than are currently being observed. This means that even as overall temperatures rise, we may still continue to experience extreme cold snaps, said Kodra.
“Just because you have a year that’s colder than the usual over the last decade isn’t a rejection of the global warming hypothesis,” Kodra explained.
With funding from a $10-million multi-university Expeditions in Computing grant, the duo used computational tools from big data science for the first time in order to extract nuanced insights about climate extremes.
The research also opens new areas of interest for future work, both in climate and data science. It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future. For instance, the team speculates that ice melt in hotter years may cause colder subsequent winters, but these hypotheses can only be confirmed in physics-based studies.
The study used simulations from the most recent climate models developed by groups around the world for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and “reanalysis data sets,” which are generated by blending the best available weather observations with numerical weather models. The team combined a suite of methods in a relatively new way to characterize extremes and explain how their variability is influenced by things like the seasons, geographical region, and the land-sea interface. The analysis of multiple climate model runs and reanalysis data sets was necessary to account for uncertainties in the physics and model imperfections.
The new results provide important scientific as well as societal implications, Ganguly noted. For one thing, knowing that models project a wider range of extreme temperature behavior will allow sectors like agriculture, public health, and insurance planning to better prepare for the future. For example, Kodra said, “an agriculture insurance company wants to know next year what is the coldest snap we could see and hedge against that. So, if the range gets wider they have a broader array of policies to consider.”
The paper:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140730/srep05884/full/srep05884.html
Asymmetry of projected increases in extreme temperature distributions
Evan Kodra & Auroop R. Ganguly
A statistical analysis reveals projections of consistently larger increases in the highest percentiles of summer and winter temperature maxima and minima versus the respective lowest percentiles, resulting in a wider range of temperature extremes in the future. These asymmetric changes in tail distributions of temperature appear robust when explored through 14 CMIP5 climate models and three reanalysis datasets. Asymmetry of projected increases in temperature extremes generalizes widely. Magnitude of the projected asymmetry depends significantly on region, season, land-ocean contrast, and climate model variability as well as whether the extremes of consideration are seasonal minima or maxima events. An assessment of potential physical mechanisms provides support for asymmetric tail increases and hence wider temperature extremes ranges, especially for northern winter extremes. These results offer statistically grounded perspectives on projected changes in the IPCC-recommended extremes indices relevant for impacts and adaptation studies.
Figure S1
John in L du B says:
I also agree that the earth isn’t warming right now.
Thank you.
I think we all agree that the planet has warmed in fits and starts since the LIA. It may begin warming again at some point. But since the late ’90’s there has been no global warming, which throws the claim that CO2 causes global warming into great doubt.
I think we could also agree that instead of global warming resuming, the climate could tip over into global cooling, or it could remain in its current stasis. We just don’t know — which makes all predictions nothing more than assertions based on a political narrative.
Scientific skeptics don’t have to be right. But we want answers. If we are shown to be wrong that’s OK, because it increases our understanding. We want knowledge, wherever it leads. That makes the skeptical mindset completely different from the alarmist mindset. One is based on science; the other is based on religious belief. And despite chuck’s hair splitting, there is no third way. Either one accepts the Scientific Method, or one doesn’t.
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 7:11 pm
there is no third way ”
..
Thank you for confirming your false dichotomy
chuck,
There are scientific skeptics, and then there is everyone else. You are part of the subset ‘everyone else’. You can fabricate a zillion different classifications, but they are nonsense. Either you are a skeptic, or you’re not. You are not. That makes you an alarmist.
Global warming has stopped. You can argue incessantly, but you sound more deluded the more you protest reality. Even the Washington Post has printed a chart contradicting your True Belief.
You are amusing, chuck. Despite mountains of evidence debunking your religious belief, you still insist that global warming’s gonna getcha. You are a case study in cognitive dissonance: despite statellite data — the most accurate there is — your response is no different from a Jehovah’s Witness being told his beliefs are crazy.
Finally, just to deconstruct your claim that rising [?] sea levels are proof of continuing global warming, let me explain something to you. There is a lag time due to the oceans’ heat capacity. There is no lag time to satelite data; it is in real time, and it shows conclusively that global warming has stopped. You write that the sea level rise is due to melting ice, and thermal expansion. The fact is that thermal expansion, melting ice, and sea level rise is all due to the same basic cause: the planet’s recovery from the LIA.
Uber-Warmist Phil Jones confirms that. His chart shows that the planet has warmed exactly the same in the 1800’s as it has recently. That leaves no room for human-emitted CO2 to have any measurable effect.
Can you understand that chart? The planet has warmed, in fits and starts, since the LIA. The recent warming is exactly the same as past warming. Each step change is the same. But despite all the evidence, your religious belief will not allow you to accept reality. You only cherry-pick the factoids that support your confirmation bias.
You’re the kind of lemming that has made Michael Mann rich and famous, chuckles. At least you have that!
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 8:09 pm
You are part of the subset ‘everyone else’”
You continue to commit a logical fallacy. It is called “false dichotomy” You cannot continue to say, “if you are not with me, you are against me”.
..
Your use of the adjective “skeptic” betrays your “religion”
There is no “lag time” in ocean warming. The energy goes in, the water expands” You’d best be ready to explain to me which law of physics you have misconstrued to explain how heated water waits a period of time before it expands. If any one is “skeptical” it is me, in that your “theory of lagging thermal expansion” can be explained with physics. I can’t wait to hear it, as it will provide be with comical fodder for my students.
chuckles,
You are a lunatic. Skepticism and religion are polar opposites. Religion is faith-based, just like your belief in continuing global warming. Scientific skeptics say, “Show me.” That means the onus is on you to prove global warming is continuing. You failed at that. You are disputing satellite data. Who would believe you?
See, chuck, the onus is on you. And just because you baselessly assert that others you disagree with are not logical, that is only your weak fallback argument, because you are unable to contradict all the empirical evidence presented.
Go argue with the Washington Post if you don’t believe them. Like me, they will just laugh at you.
Also, I doubt you have ‘students’, unless you teach astrology. To say there is no lag time in the ocean makes you sound like a blithering idiot. If there were no lag time, the oceans would all be the same temperature year-round.
You say:
If any one is “skeptical” it is me
Heh. As if. Everything you write brands you as a religious True Believer in the globaloney scare. Your arguments are at the level of a special ed student. So please, don’t pretend you are what you are not. I was on to you way back, when you tried to pretend you were impartial. But I easily smoked you out. Now, everyone can tell you are a swivel-eyed alarmist. You’re not fooling anyone here.
You’re dealing with adults, “chuck”, and the folks here have a lot of education in the hard sciences — something that it is obvious you are sadly lacking.
As I said above: the “carbon” scare is witch doctor juju.
Professor ‘dr. chuck’ says:
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.” [source]
☺
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Show me”
..
Your theory of lagging thermal expansion.
…
Try to avoid name calling, and banal insults in your response.
‘Sea level rise will continue for centuries to thousands of years after greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised due to the long lag times involved in warming of the oceans and the response of ice sheets.’
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-future/sea-level
Instantaneous heat?
lee,
Thank you. That saves me some typing. As your link notes:
Sea level rise will continue for centuries to thousands of years after greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised due to the long lag times involved in warming of the oceans…
It is also good to know that others are reading along. Sometimes I’m just having fun with folks like chuck because he’s so easy to refute, as you have demonstrated.
Observe his tactic. When someone like chuck can’t prevail in a debate, he will still argue incessantly over every nitpicking point, even though his arguments are easy to refute. It is the argument that is chuck’s goal, not the conclusion. He certainly doesn’t want to learn anything.
The rest of us here know the facts. Since about 1997 global warming has stopped. We don’t really know why, because we don’t have all the answers: what causes warming, what caused the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warming Period; what brings about the great stadials, or exactly how the planet maintains it’s temperature within a narrow band. We can make educated guesses, but we don’t know. If we did, the debate would be settled.
What we do know is that the current global climate and temperature are within a completely normal range historically, and that current global T is indistinguishable from natural variability. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything currently observed has happened before, and to a much greater degree. Any effect from human activity is so minuscule that it is not even measurable.
Maybe the scales will fall from chuck’s eyes. But I’m not holding my breath. We are in a fight against ignorance. That battle will take time and effort to win.
chuck:
Your post at July 31, 2014 at 3:17 pm purports to be a reply to my post immediately above it at July 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm which is here.
Your reply completely ignores the contents of my post and says
Then you follow that nonsense by talking about “logic” (a subject which you clearly do not understand).
Your argument by assertion is twaddle. What “empirical evidence” do you claim exists which indicates “that global warming has not stopped, and in fact continues as we type”? You do not say. Is it this “evidence” merely that the Easter Bunny told you?
All the measurements of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped. It has.
And I yet again repeat my request for you to explain your assertion that “empirical evidence” is the same as “opinion”.
Richard
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:41 pm
Thank you lee
Your link proves my point, especially this line contained in the link……..
observed thermal ocean expansion due to warming (1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm per year);”
It shows that in the past 17 years, and right up until today, the WARMING CONTINUES
..
Thermal expansion is not “lagging”
richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 1:50 am
All the measurements of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped. It has.”
…
Except the measurement of sea level rise indicates the warming HAS NOT STOPPED.
Mr dbstealy
You still have not explained the physics behind the “lagging thermal expansion”
..
It would be interesting to know, how if you heated a volume of water 10 degrees C, if you have to wait one hour, two days or a year and a half for the resulting expansion to occur.
Please tell us all how this works.
chuck says:
August 1, 2014 at 6:29 am
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:41 pm
Thank you lee
Your link proves my point, ……..
Uh, that link begins with:
“Sea level rise is caused by two processes: thermal expansion (ocean water expanding as it heats up) and additional water flows into the oceans from ice that melts on land. Both these processes are currently being observed.”
Really? No other factor(s) influences what we perceive as a “sea level rise”?
JohnWho says:
August 1, 2014 at 6:55 am
“No other factor(s) influences what we perceive as a “sea level rise”?”
Could be others, however, 1.1 (0.8 to 1.4) mm per year is due to thermal expansion.
So, in the past 17 years there has been 18.7 mm of thermal expansion.
Only thing I know that causes thermal expansion is heat.
Funny, this global warming “math” these days.
Ole Chuck above claims a 50 mm rise in sea level proves global warming is occurring – even though no changes in measured air temperatures have been found, but provides no dates or time interval.
Another writer assumes this is over a 17 year period (probably using the longest period of observed, measured “no change in temperature” values.
Which becomes 50 mm/17 years, or 3 mm/year.
which becomes “proves my point” by Chuck, because obviously 3 mm per year (guessed values) = 1.1 mm/year (measured values from all possible influences)
RACookPE1978 says:
August 1, 2014 at 7:19 am
but provides no dates or time interval.”
..
Follow the thread, this whole discussion is about the fact that in the past 17 years the oceans have been warming, as evidenced by thermal expansion of the water in them.
Also, re-read the post above where I wrote.
” In the past 17 years, there has been about 50 mm of sea level rise. It hasn’t stopped rising in the 17 years. Part of that is due to melting ice, part of it is due to thermal expansion.
”
Pay real close attention to “part of it is due to thermal expansion.”
RACookPE1978 says:
August 1, 2014 at 7:19 am
“(guessed values)”
Please feel free to visit CU Sea Level Research Group if you need more precise values for measured sea level rise (3.2 +;/- 0.4 mm/yr)
chuck:
Your post at August 1, 2014 at 6:31 am says in total
chuck, you warmunists really, really like ‘The Dead Parrot Sketch’!
Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
Global warming is an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.
There has been no increase in the surface temperature of the Earth for more than a decade.
So, GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED.
Your claim that global warming has not stopped because of indications of “measurement of sea level rise” is like saying the parrot has not died because its feet are nailed to its perch.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 7:43 am
Warming consists of an increase in temperature.”
..
Richard, please explain to me how water can thermally expand without an increase in temperature.
Don’t forget the fact that the oceans play a critical role in absorbing heat.
chuck:
I see that at August 1, 2014 at 7:47 am you persist in claiming the parrot is not dead when you ask me
No need because it is not relevant.
I wrote – and you have not disputed
So, if one adopts the dubious assertion that the claimed rise in see level results from warming of deep ocean then it is not relevant to SURFACE warming which contributes to global warming.
As I said
Just admit the reality that global warming has stopped and the pain of your cognitive dissonance will ease.
Part of your cognitive dissonance is your assertion that empirical evidence is merely “opinion”, and you have still not explained why you made that assertion.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 8:08 am
So, if one adopts the dubious assertion that the claimed rise in see level results from warming of deep ocean then it is not relevant to SURFACE warming which contributes to global warming.”
I have made no statement as regards to where the warming of the oceans is occurring. It doesn’t matter if the warming is at the surface or the warming is deep. The warming will cause thermal expansion. The effect of this thermal expansion is the rise in the sea level. Since the sea level has continued to rise for the past 17 years, it shows that the oceans AS A WHOLE are being heated to cause the thermal expansion.
chuck:
I am quoting your entire post at August 1, 2014 at 8:15 am because your post admits that global warming has stopped.
It says
You rightly say you “made no statement as regards to where the warming of the oceans is occurring”. But is DOES “matter if the warming is at the surface or the warming is deep”.
Global warming is an increase in the SURFACE temperature of the Earth.
Bulk warming of the ocean is not relevant, only surface warming can contribute to global warming.
At last you have admitted that global warming has stopped, but you have not yet recognised that you have admitted it so you are still trying to sell yourself a dead parrot.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 8:29 am
Global warming is an increase in the SURFACE temperature of the Earth.”
I suggest you investigate the effects of the 1998 El Nino, then get back to me regarding the interaction of the ocean and the air.
I have not admitted that global warming has stopped, because unlike you, I consider the ocean water to be a part of the Earth. Your attempt at modifying the definition of “global warming” doesn’t work in the calculation of the Earth’s energy balance. You can try to disassociate ocean temperature form air temperature, but physics is not on your side with that obfuscation of your definition of “global”
chuck:
I recognise that – as you say in your post at August 1, 2014 at 8:38 am – you fail to see that you have admitted that global warming has stopped. Indeed, in my post at August 1, 2014 at 8:29 am I wrote
But you say to me
Wrong, I do “consider the ocean water to be a part of the Earth” and I consider the mantle to be part of the Earth, too. But so what?
Global warming is an increase to average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
And you did not dispute that until it became clear that global warming has stopped.
Your assertion that I have attempted to redefine global warming is laughable, and it can only be understood as being your psychological projection. Indeed, you attempt to claim my use of the standard definition of global warming is “obfuscation” when the obfuscation is yours.
Global warming is NOT ocean heat as you have claimed.
Global warming is NOT the Earth’s energy balance as you have claimed.
Global warming is an increase to average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
Global warming has stopped. Face up to it, and live with it.
Your parrot is dead and nothing you say can change that. The parrot may resurrect but nobody can know if that will happen.
Richard