Articles on this Page
- 12/21/18--23:25: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--00:05: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--03:37: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--05:32: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--05:52: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--13:55: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--13:57: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--13:59: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:04: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:06: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:11: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:14: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--14:42: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--15:09: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--15:14: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:03: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--23:25: Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
- 12/22/18--00:05: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--03:37: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 12/22/18--05:32: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/22/18--13:55: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--13:57: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--13:59: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--14:04: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--14:06: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--14:11: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--14:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by edimbukvarevic
- 12/22/18--14:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--14:14: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--14:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--14:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--14:42: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--15:09: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--15:14: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--16:03: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Robert I. Ellison: <i>But in general his comments are in the form of rehearsed climate talking points – hot spots, sea levels, hiatus, paleo ECS, AIDS, smoking and climate consensus denying contrarions – are there any I missed? Empty and pointless from either side. If that floats your boat Matthew. </i>
I didn't say anything floats my boat, did I? I said that his comments deserve rebuttal.
Interminably - it's how they get their jollies.
Interesting comment, Matthew. It doesn't bother me that people have the opposite view to mine, or that they arrive to different conclusions from the same evidence. That is science. If anything I find Atomsk dialectic approach more appropriate for humanities argumentation than scientific discussions.
<blockquote>The 1998-1999 El Nino was followed by a deep drop in global mean temperature; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may be followed by such a deep drop in global mean temperature. Subsequently, the global mean temperature during the hiatus was higher than it had been for an equal duration of time before the 1998-1999 El Nino; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may likewise be followed by such a step increase in global mean temperature. It’s foolish to argue as though the next 20 years is already known.</blockquote>
I analyzed every temperature drop since 1950 here:
The rate, and circumstances of the post-2016 cooling are different from the post-1998 cooling, indicating different drivers. As a result nothing indicates that a rebound in temperatures to a higher baseline should be expected this time.
The Central Pacific subsurface heat was thoroughly drained by the 2015 Niño and has not been recharged by the very small Niñas afterwards. As a result it is having difficulties to feed a proper El Niño despite SST temperature being sufficient.
We can predict a La Niña coming when solar activity increases after the minimum with high probability because it is what has happened in the last six solar cycles (past 70 years)
When that happens the global temperature will fall further.
So while we cannot know the future, we can predict with a higher probability further cooling in 2-3 years.
The observed cooling post-2016 is already the fourth largest since 1950 and the largest since 1976. When it is finished it will likely be a record cooling for the past 70 years. Will it be reported as such? So far there is no mention of it. Every warming gets reported, but a cooling that is a 20-year event goes unreported.
Weather is chaotic. Climate is not because it is externally forced, and as you can see ENSO is under solar control, and solar variability is periodical, and therefore to a certain extent predictable.
Each peak in the PDO index resulted in a record warmest year: 1998; 2005; 2010; 2016, No significant cooling can take place unless the PDO goes solidly negative, and that has not happened. Not the JIASO PDO version or the NOAA PDO version, they are both in neutral territory.
Without a solidly negative PDO index, the North Pacific is hot:
Re: <b>"I think that is wrong. He is repetitious, but so are most of us. He mistakes “disputation” for “debunking” [...]"</b>
Evidence-free commentary and grand-standing, as usual.
Re: <b>"Whether “warming” did or did not persist through the “hiatus”, and how much warming or cooling will occur in the next 20 years are not yet known."</b>
There is not a statistically significant difference between the warming from from 1979 - 1998 vs. the warming rate from 1998 onwards. That's been shown in paper after paper. And the troposphere continued to warm, as did the deeper ocean. You've been shown evidence on this over and over. The fact that you continue to make your false claims on this subject, despite having being shown evidence on this, is remarkable. Actually, it's predictable.
Re: <b>"The “hiatus” has been well-described in peer-reviewed journals"</b>
A poorly-defined "hiatus" has been mentioned repeatedly. If you don't give a statistically rigorous definition, then you end up with trivialities where you can claim a hiatus occurred for two years, because 1999 or 2000 were not warmer than 1998 for the surface temperature record. See, for instance, what Javier is doing by cherry-picking 2016 as his start-point for a trend.
If all a paper wants to do is claim that there was a non-statistically-significant change in the rate of surface warming, and they want to examine the shorter-term factors affect that change, then fine. One could do that for a change lasting 2 years, as in my previous example. But the moment you try to claim that there was a robust, statistically significant change in the rate of warming, then the notion of a "pause" or "hiatus" falls apart.
The game you, and so many other contrarians, play is that <b>you conflate papers that discuss a "pause" or "hiatus" in a non-statistically-significant non-robust sense, with there being a hiatus in a robust statistically significant sense</b>. As explained by the paper I cited before:
<i>"Decadal ocean heat redistribution since the late 1990s and its association with key climate modes
Among the common definitions of pause/hiatus are: (1) a statistically significant change in the rate of global warming, as measured by changes to the heat balance of the planet; (2) a statistically significant change in the surface temperature record; (3) a non-statistically significant change in the rate of GMST [global mean surface temperature] change; and (4) Divergence between GMST predictions (from climate modes) and actual GMST measurements. Unfortunately, these definitions are often conflated and their separate identities must be maintained.
So, has there been a pause in global warming? The answer would be mistakenly “yes” only if one defines the “global warming” only by GMST changes (definition 3 above)."</i>
That fits with the conclusion of paper after paper that applied rigorous statistical analysis to the notion of a "pause" or "hiatus", while examining different temperature analyses. For instance:
<i>"A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence"
"Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls"
"Debunking the climate hiatus"
"Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature"
"Change points of global temperature"
"The “pause” in global warming: turning a routine fluctuation into a problem for science"
"The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution?"
"Has there been a hiatus?"
"An apparent hiatus in global warming?"
"A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets"
"On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming"
"Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends"</i>
Re: <b>"All claims about the future are based on some models or different model about the past, and none of the models can yet be said to have “passed” what are called “tests” or “stringent tests”."</b>
You've been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback). But you simply repeat the false claim that there have been no confirmed predictions anyway. It's clear that no amount of evidence is ever going to change your mind. And there's a term for that...
"Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small." NAS 2002
Half the warming from 1980 was natural. And does he deny dynamical complexity in Earth systems at all scales - or it just doesn't compute?
...and the other half was also proportional to the CO2 change, aka a positive feedback.
Or modest (0.1 C/decade) and historically transient AGW superimposed of large scale perpetual climate change? It is all just memes with #jiminy.
Nature chose now for a wild swing upwards just as the CO2 forcing accelerated. At some point it becomes flat-eartherism to keep invoking coincidence.
The other half at least is eastern Pacific cloud variability negatively correlated with sea surface temperature. Correlated - using cumulative MEI as a proxy - much more closely with surface temps.
No coincidence - just documented internal changes in the Earth system that sunspots are of little direct relevance to.
Jim, no I disagreee. The 30-year (trailing) trend clearly oscillates and it was ~zero in 1980.
...so you are disconnecting surface temps from global warming somehow. Explain.
Massive coincidence since the CO2 forcing correlates with the last five decadal average temperatures at 0.995. That doesn't leave much room for anything that is not correlated with it.
The 30-year trend that starts at 1980 is displayed at 1995 in my graph, so 1980 has been consistent with the trend since.
"... but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture..." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
You mean there is something else happening in energy entering oceans over decades to millennia than anthropogenic forcing, an almost constant sun and the occassional volcano? Duh...
Can't walk and chew gum? As I said - there is a much better correlation of surface temp and cumulative MEI. And really - give me a citation for this latest motivated silliness.
Even then I would SMH at the tremendous irrelevance of depending on such a silly claim of absolute proof from a least squares correlation. It is not that there is not a causal relationship between CO2 - but it goes not at all to attribution. #jiminy is being especially silly now. And for what reason is inscrutable. I think he needs catastrophic climate to dismantle western energy system - and being wrong now would be far too damaging to the cause.
The trajectory of surface warming has breakpoints around 1912, 1944, 1976 and 1998. Ignoring this obvious reality seems arbitrary denial.
The others, yes, 1998, not so much. That was in the middle of the ongoing warming trend.
<i>Half the warming from 1980 was natural. And does he deny dynamical complexity in Earth systems at all scales – or it just doesn’t compute?</i>