From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO and the two most manipulated datasets on the planet- Karl’s “pause buster” and NASA GISS.
Study points to primacy of Pacific Ocean as a global climate force
In doing so, the researchers also created a new method by which researchers can measure and monitor the pace of anthropogenic global warming, finding that the contribution of human activities to warming in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean can be distinguished from natural variability.
Former Scripps researcher Yu Kosaka, now at the University of Tokyo, and Shang-Ping Xie, the Roger Revelle Chair in Environmental Science at Scripps, created the simulation by forcing sea surface temperature over the tropical Pacific to follow the observed variability.
“The climate system includes naturally occurring cycles that complicate the measurement of global warming due to the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases,” said Xie. “We can isolate the anthropogenic warming by removing the internally generated natural variability.”
Climate policymakers have sought to limit the rise of global temperatures to 2° Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels. That figure is considered a threshold beyond which society and natural systems are virtually assured of experiencing significant and dangerous instability. Scientists have estimated that the planet is already roughly 1° C warmer at the surface than before the Industrial Revolution.
The 2° C target was reaffirmed during the 2015 Conference of the Parties, known as COP21, that was held in Paris in December. Kosaka and Xie’s research could provide an easily generated and more accurate means to measure society’s success in keeping temperatures below that threshold.
The research is further confirmation of the primary importance of the Pacific in controlling global-scale climate that researchers have come to understand in recent decades. Kosaka and Xie plotted the rise of global mean temperatures over the past 120 years. The rise of temperatures ascends in a staircase fashion with the steps becoming larger over the past 50 years.
When Kosaka and Xie removed as a variable the natural warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean, the rise of global mean surface temperature became a more linear increase, one that began to accelerate more sharply in the 1960s. It had been natural Pacific decadal variations that temporarily slowed down or speeded up the warming trend, leading to the staircase pattern.
For example, global mean surface temperature has not changed much for 1998-2014, a time period known as the hiatus that has been tied to naturally occurring tropical Pacific cooling. Raw data show a warming of 0.9° C for the recent five-year period of 2010-2014 relative to 1900 while Kosaka and Xie’s calculation yields a much higher anthropogenic warming of 1.2° C after correcting for the natural variability effect.
“Most of the difference between the raw data and new estimates is found during the recent 18 years since 1998,” said Xie. “Because of the hiatus, the raw data underestimate the greenhouse warming.”
Kosaka and Xie suggest that though Pacific Ocean trends are an essential variable control on global temperature rise, the accuracy of their warming estimate will be improved in the future as other climate modes are added as variables. An international initiative involving more than a dozen climate models is being planned to improve the estimates included in upcoming assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
###
…”We can isolate the anthropogenic warming by removing the internally generated natural variability”…
Gee, why didn’t anybody ever think of that before? Must be a true genius.
“…created the simulation by forcing sea surface temperature over the tropical Pacific to follow the observed variability…”
Why not just force all temperatures to follow the observed variability? Or is that the next trick/paper/funding opportunity?
Of couse we all know that would be an exercise in over-fitting and has been done by any number of people. But if you only do the teenie-tiny Pacific Ocean (lol), it’s somehow valid.
Another stall in sixdeshow alley. Should fit well between the ‘throw the ball in the clown’s mouth’ and ‘shoot the tin ducks’ to win your special eco cuddly toy prize. It’ll be the Go Poke a Moron of the CAGW world.
Oooh, another computer game! Is it available for Xbox?
Cool . . er, I mean great . . Now we can have daily updates, with yellow, orange or red alert symbols, depending on “real time” track keeping of our impact on global temperature! Oh the wonders of modern Siants . . bestest buddy of our friend Big Brother.
(Let’s all cut one at once, and see if we can impact the climate, eh?)
“Most of the difference between the raw data and new estimates is found during the recent 18 years since 1998,” said Xie. “Because of the hiatus, the raw data underestimate the greenhouse warming.”
This must be the most completely worthless observation ever recorded in history. Who writes this crap?
Does this mean they can now predict the weather ?
Oops should have added “accurately”.
Moderately interesting, but the temperature record is probably not known with enough resolution for this to be very useful.
Hey, that reminds me — did Zeke’s team ever decide on a single temperature for July 1936? Or is that still changing pretty often?
I wonder if the relative flatness of the new “guessed” AGW temperatures up to mid-1900’s versus the steep late-1900’s and 2000’s “guessed” is because they forgot to take out the aerosols used in the models to make the old hindcasts?
Absent from their “natural” variation (Pacific Ocean oscillation) is the natural rebound of temperatures from the Little Ice Age. I don’t know its magnitude, potential oscillation or even if it is still operating. Does anyone else know? I was surprised to learn that the authors believed that the oscillation of one ocean basin was the sole driver of worldwide climate, other than protean man’s assault.
Additionally, as noted above, they ignored AMO. I was under the impression its oscillation profoundly affected the Northern Hemisphere climate, at a minimum.
I’d like to see their analysis of the lack of model-predicted increased water vapor in the upper troposphere. Does that track Pacific Ocean temperatures?
Maybe Bob Tisdale can tease out some relevant data? If so, I’ll contribute to his tip jar again!
Dave Fair
You don’t get -0.65°C AGW in 1908 by teasing the data.
The data has to be waterboarded to get this kind of result.
For some fun, plot all the different GISS temps for the period 1900-1940 since they started reporting on the same chart. It’s a spaghetti graph.
I do know at least this; I’m an existentialist. In short, that means whatever seems to float my boat is probably real.
So here’s the deal; I’m alive. Looks like that might continue for awhile. Life, as they say, is good. Anyone have a problem with that? Talk to my attorney. Butch? Please escort these folks to the conference room. Thanks.
I honestly wish I could blow off stuff like this. I really do. I would like nothing more than to think this is something I don’t need even be concerned about. I’d like to think there aren’t thousands of “activists” pounding the sidewalks trying (and succeeding) to convince Grandma to cough up just $25 to make sure her great grandchildren won’t suffer a horrible death frying alive on the streets of Taft.
Yep. I’d like that. I’d like it if a house fell on the Wizard. And his little dog. Just once.
How do they distinguish between man-made CO2 increases and man-made energy/power production increases – the latter being the so called Heat Island effects! Has anyone plotted man-made CO2 increases and man-made power/energy generation increases over the last 200 years to see which has the best correlation?
With a bit of luck non linear equations will follow in a few years time…;-)
As neither global warming (agw/cagw) nor made climate change exist in reality and are nothing but a left wing construct; it does not matter how many computer climate models are developed they are all meaningless. In addition the differential equations needed to define the models are non linear and cannot be solved by mathematicians (Laplace, Lagrange, Bessel etc) .
Producing a real time climate model with all its algorithms and stuff might be really clever and time consuming as an exercise in maths but apart from that must be absolutely meaningless.