Reposted from Fabius Maximus under CC license
Summary: The climate science debate not only holds answers vital to our future, but allows us to learn from this demonstration of science in motion. Unfortunately activists on both Left and Right have gained control of the public debate, neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals. Here we look at the exciting developments on the cutting edge of the climate sciences.
The essence of science is trial and error, as described by biologist Lewis Thomas in his wonderful essay “To Err is Human”. Scientists form theories and make conjectures. True or false, science either way. That’s what provides much of its excitement. We see this today in the climate sciences, although journalists too often conceal it from us, preferring the myth of “the science is settled” (now shown to be absurd).
The pause in surface temperature warming has sparked a new phase of research in the climate sciences. Among other effects, it invalidated several high profile forecasts. Some were informal predictions, such as this by Dr David Viner of the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, quoted in The Independent, 20 March 2000:
{W}ithin a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Or this, more formal, from the NASA press release “Arctic Meltdown“, 27 February 2001:
… in 10 years’ time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer. These predictions come in a recently declassified report of a meeting of American, British and Canadian Arctic and naval experts in April last year, organised by Dennis Conlon of the US Office of Naval Research in Arlington, Virginia. Entitled “Naval Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic” …
Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,” he predicts.
Some projections are both formal and important. The flattish trend of global surface temperatures during the pause has fallen below the lower bound of the projections used by the IPCC (strictly speaking, not predictions). See the below updated version of Figure 10.1 from the IPCCC’s AR5 WGI from “Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus“, Masahiro Watanabe et al, Nature Climate Change, in press. The grey shaded area shows projections from CMIP5 (a set of model outputs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5, used in the IPCC’s AR5). The black line is actual global surface temperature (from the UK’s HadCRUT data).
.
It’s a small gap, but might grow to become serious if the pause lasts for years — or even decades (as some forecast). The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. Much depends on the possible political effects of the pause in global warming,
Other effects of the pause
Events prove some scientists right, and some wrong. Sometimes the right ones were in the minority. For example the eminent climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr (see Wikipedia) has long said that the focus on the surface air temperature was inappropriate. For example:
“The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.” (source)
For this he was smeared and called a denier by activists. Such as those at Skeptical Science (more accurately called “skeptical of science”). See this page calling him a “climate misinformer” (note that all of Pielke’s quotes shown there now appear correct). See this note for more detail and references to his work.
Now the oceans’ role have become a central focus of current research and is one of the leading explanations for the pause (see section 7 here). This rise and fall of reputations is part of the drama of science, concealed by activists who choose their heroes and villains by their political utility.
What’s next for the climate sciences?
The first round of debate was about the existence of the pause. Has there been a statistically significant change to the short-term warming trend? See the statements of scientists and some of their research here. That round has ended.
The second round was debate about the causes of the pause. It’s still running strong, with 11 broad causes identified. As yet there is no consensus on their interrelationships and relative importance. See some of the research here.
The third round has barely begun, giving estimates of the pause’s duration. This might prove to be the key question. See some of the research here.
Behind all of these is a larger debate about the reliability of the current generation of climate models (e.g. see this and this). That’s a question only time can answer.
These are high stakes debates, often petty or even vituperative (neither unusual in academia). Massive research funding, career success, public policy decisions, and perhaps the fate of the world depend on the results. As laypeople, we can just watch and learn. Let’s not treat it as a baseball game, cheering for “our” team.
First of all you should replace the massively adjusted surface data chart with one based on much better satellite data. I believe Dr. Roy Spencer has a very nice one at his site.
Next, you need to extrapolate what will happen if the oceans really do control our climate. The PDO has already gone negative. The AMO has peaked and will cool for another 25-20 years. This will likely lead to increases in Arctic sea ice. In addition, solar cycles 25 and 26 could very likely be weaker than average. The combination of these events is likely to cool the planet for at least another two decades. The pause/hiatus/plateau/cooling is likely last for 20 or more years.
Yes, I agree, this chart is much better:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png
Notwithstanding all the studies, all the research and all the mistakes.
The waste of time, money, (tax money), and useless brain power (fraud and graft), has left man kind with a “cold” . A cold climate which will be a dry climate. The evil of it was the spending on the fraud when in fact easy to see lakes and research and spending on water conservation were what was demanded by the facts and truth.
Now the money, time and energy has been misspent.
Just say no to the fraud and get started on real solutions to the comming water shortages.
The climate and weather will be what it is no matter what we do.
Fact is the truth was there but so many with greed and over sized egos the truth was covered up with lies and preening peacocks.
It’s not a “pause”. The climate has simply entered a new phase.
Actually, “phase” it not an appropriate word either as the word phase implies a known repeatable cycle. And we know that climate is a choatic system. I think the best word to descrbe the current state of the climate would be “stage”.
The current climate stage is one of flat temperatures. There is no increase, nor is there any decrease. How long this stage lasts is unknown. And what the stage will look like afterward is also unknown.
If we look at multi decadal or century long cycles then we might conclude that it was more likely that global temperates might be more likely to decline. Perhaps we could assign a 75%/25% ratio of probablility that temperatures will enter a declining stage. Should we be making massive policy decisions that would reduce the level of human prosperity, health and circumstances on the basis of such uncertainty?
Only if the effects of warming or cooling were known to cause hardship that would make such policy decisions worthwhile. Since no one is capable of knowing what the real effects of climate change actually are then making any policy decisions are foolish, stupid and wrong. Altering our human conditions on such policies is one of the greatest poitical, social and humanitartion follies of our time.
The fact that the world is faced by dozens of far more significant and dire needs that remain ignored by the political elite, the powerful and the connected is an utter disgrace for which all contributors and supports ought to hang their heads in shame. I would suggest that the most disgraceful corruption of the political process that has occurred in almost all western democracies for the last 50 years is the over reaching influence of faux “green” organizations.
Their influence, which is primarily based upon fear mongering and unfair guilt / shaming of western culture, has stopped the progress of liberty and happiness throughout larger sectors of the world. How many hundreds of millions of people would be alive, happier and more prosperous today had not the western democracies been overwhelmed by misguided “greens”?
The essence of science is trial and error, …
Epistemological nonsense. The essence of science is building models with predictive power.
The lessons of climate science are the failures of peer-review, of publication in professional journals, of authority by consensus, and of GCMs with way too many knobs tuned to doctored data. All that plus the vulnerability of government, of media, and of science writers with abysmal science literacy. Applause for the pause. Nature’s falsification.
Not everyone swinging a hammer is a carpenter.
Exactly right. If a model cannot predict reliably and accurately, it is a conjecture. An opinion [and you know what they say about opinions].
The AGW model has never been able to accurately predict global temperatures [AKA: ‘the climate’]. Despite the $millions spent on GCM’s [computer climate models], not one of them was able to predict the most significant climate event of the past twenty years: the fact that global warming stopped. They were all wrong.
Every AGW-based computer climate model has failed. They did not predict that global warming would stop, and they cannot predict if, or when, it might resume. Or if global cooling will commence. GCMs simply cannot predict with any accuracy at all. Their predictions have all failed.
AGW may exist. But if it does, its effect is minuscule; it is so tiny that it has never been empirically measured. The AGW model is unable to make accurate predictions. Thus, AGW remains only a conjecture. But the climate alarmist crowd [and many others besides] treat AGW as if it were a proven fact. It isn’t.
Question: at what point will Fabius Maximus accept the fact that the AGW conjecture has failed? It cannot make accurate predictions. And if something cannot be measured, it is simply not science. It is speculation. Really, it is not much more than witch doctor juju. Because if something is not measurable, it cannot be called science.
Too much of a generalization too early in the post. I stopped reading there so won’t know if the rest of the article was worth the time. We need to avoid using broad brushes.
It’s a small gap, but might grow to become serious if the pause lasts for years — or even decades (as some forecast). The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. Much depends on the possible political effects of the pause in global warming,
My reply
They are still assuming this is just a pause. They have yet to come to grips that not only is this not a pause but the temperature trend going forward is going to be down.
The pause as they try to convey will give us more time to prepare for global warming the problem is it will NOT be global warming but global cooling.
remarkable concessions from a believer – but the article encouraging a focus on the science unaffected by bias – contains the author’s bias just below the surface – eg –
The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. Much depends on the possible political effects of the pause in global warming,
1) why reduce a natural variation – unless you think it isn’t natural – is raising temps so bad – or even rising CO2 levels
2) the article linked in the “political effects…” portion of that statement – http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/08/26/global-warming-pause-54183/) – comes from the perspective of a person stubbornly biased in “warmist” favor – eg “The work of the IPCC and the major science institutes are the best guides for information about these issues”
it may not seem like it but i’m trying not to be harsh – i think biases are as inevitable as changing temps – and it’s difficult to overcome them – especially on the issue of man-made CO2 effects – it’s not surprising to me that you had no recipe for putting them aside
dp September 8, 2014 at 9:38 am
Too much of a generalization too early in the post. I stopped reading there so won’t know if the rest of the article was worth the time. We need to avoid using broad brushes.
i agree with you about that early statement – however i plunged on – and found it largely and surprisingly agreeable – the author is clearly a warmist who has been looking closely at the issue of “the pause” – the article is highly rational statement despite it’s few flaws – the kind you might wish more on the “other side” would make
‘Climate Science’, where the venal side of science meets the aspirant side of politics. Not a lot different to mutually beneficial activity under ‘The Arches’. The lesson? Babylon.
“As laypeople, we can just watch and learn. Let’s not treat it as a baseball game, cheering for “our” team.”
It would be nice if the whole thing were like an interesting game that we could just watch and enjoy. Unfortunately, the “other” team wants to come up in the stands and beat the c**p out of the spectators while the game unfolds (ruin economies, tax like mad, limit freedoms, etc.). When our team has them behind 13 to 4 I’ll relax and enjoy the game.
Stop feeding the troll. Jeez!
To the Editor of the Fabius Maximus blog:
This will get lost in the nested replies up above, so it is being re-posted here. I would appreciate a reply from the Editor.
Editor of the FM site:
You say you get your opinion “…when some climate scientists I trust say so. Or, second, when one or more major climate agencies say so. Such as the IPCC or the UK Met Office…”
No wonder you arrive at the wrong conclusions. Climate science is really not that complicated, and you should use your own judgement, rather than relying on self-serving assertions from groups like the UN/IPCC or the UK government.
Those groups have a remit: investigate and report on anthropogenic global warming, make recommendations, and provide projections [which are in reality predictions].
Do you see the problem with that? If not, it is this: a conclusion has been reached. AGW is occurring. Therefore, something must be done. Is that accurate so far?
That is certainly not science, and the conclusions are contrary to established facts and observations. It is the reason all those groups have egg on their faces: global warming has stopped, many years ago. Their belief that human activity causes global warming [AGW] has taken a fatal hit. With ever-rising CO2, they are unable to explain why global temperatures are not rising.
Instead, put your trust in something simple, which avoids the self-serving, biased opinions of the climate alarm industry: use testable, measurable facts, and verifiable observations. In other words, use scientific evidence; don’t rely on opinions.
If you do that, you will be adhering to the Scientific Method and you will not go wrong, as the IPCC and most other ‘official’ groups have. There are a few simple, verifiable facts that deconstruct the AGW premise:
First, global warming stopped many years ago. That is an observable fact, which is directly contrary to the endless predictions of runaway global warming made by those same groups [at least, until global warming stopped]. They were wrong, but they have never admitted it. Why do you still believe their narrative?
Next, it has been established beyond any doubt that changes in atmospheric CO2 are caused by changes in global temperature. Every major govenrmental group got that causation wrong. They still believe that CO2 controls temperature. That has been shown empirically to be exactly backward:
∆temperature causes ∆CO2.
There are similar charts covering all time scales from years, to hundreds of thousands of years. ALL of them show the same cause-and-effect: changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2. But there are NO similar charts, which show that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature; any such correlation is always temporary and coincidental, and it quickly breaks down. Only the correlation showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2 has been shown to hold on all time scales.
Based on that empirical [real world] evidence, what is your conclusion? You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand that the claimed causation is wrong.
Next, alarmist scientists like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others used to engage in scientific debates. They no longer do, but not for lack of invitations. Why do you suppose they avoid debating their claims? Aside from the fact that they have lost every debate, they will no longer debate because their ‘science’ has been repeatedly falsified. So they hide out, rather than defending their views. Does that not raise red flags in your mind? If they truly believed what they are trying to sell to the public, then they should be willing to debate it at every opportunity.
Finally, you are cherry-picking your ‘authorities’. By saying you rely on scientists you trust, you are refusing to accept the views of internationally esteemed climatologists like Prof. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. Why would you do that? Instead, you gravitate toward scientists who are riding the climate gravy train. Michael Mann has receive many $millions in grants, yet he still refuses to disclose his methods, data, methodologies or metadata to other scientists who want to follow the Scientific Method, and attempt to falsify his work. That is how honest science is done, but Mann has avoided that since his widely debunked MBH98 and MBH99 papers [the journal Nature was forced to issue a rare Corregendum — a major correction — on Mann’s work]. Yet you believe a charlatan over honest scientists? Why?
It is time to re-examine your beliefs. Either you are on the side of honest science, or you are on the side of the climate alarmist crowd. They have never been right in any of their predictions, so why would you still listen to them?
Your credibility is on the line. It would be best for you to re-think your position.