Inconvenient truths surface amid climate model doubts
The Australian
12:00AM July 1, 2017

With preparations under way for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next report, a key challenge for scientists remains to explain properly the 20-year slowdown in surface temperature rises and the failure of models to predict it.

The so-called pause has been a totemic issue for sceptics, who have earned derision from much of the climate science community since bringing it to global attention. The slowdown or hiatus was mentioned, however, in the IPCC fifth assessment report, and ­behind the vitriol there has been a lot of work done to provide some answers for the sixth assessment report to be published next year.

The latest instalment is a paper by a group of the world’s leading climate scientists who now admit climate models have been wrong and must be adjusted to better reflect the results of satellite temperature measurements. During the past two decades, these results have shown a slowdown in temperature rises in the troposphere, which is the lowest layer of the ­atmosphere where almost all of our weather occurs.

The admission is contained in a new paper published in Nature Geoscience, which says a combination of factors including natural variability and unforeseen events have been responsible for models over-estimating the temperature rise. Natural variability includes the El Nino and La Nina weather patterns and oscillations on a decadal scale in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Unforeseen factors that contributed to cooling included volcanic eruptions, a weaker sun in the last solar cycle and increased particulate pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants.

The paper, Causes of Differ­ences in Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates, is lead-authored by Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, and includes Michael Mann from the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University and Matthew England from the University of NSW.

Sceptics have claimed the paper as evidence to support the pause. But the authors say their paper rules out claims the atmosphere is less sensitive to carbon dioxide or that future warming was not a concern.

“None of our findings call into question the reality of long-term warming of Earth’s troposphere and surface, or cast doubt on prevailing estimates of the amount of warming we can expect from future increases in (greenhouse gas) concentrations,” the authors say.

“Even though the most recent 20-year warming trend is smaller than in earlier parts of the satellite record, it is still significantly larger than the range of 20-year trends caused by internal climate variability alone.”

The paper says that in the early 21st century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends have been generally smaller than trends estimated from a collection of models run many times.

After analysing satellite temperatures and model simulations the scientists found internal variability could explain differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends in the last two decades of the 20th century.

However, it cannot explain the divergence for the past two decades of this century, the time of the pause. The latest paper follows on from another with many of the same authors, including ­Santer and England, published in Nature in February last year.

That paper, Making Sense of the Early 2000s Warming Slowdown, was one of the first signs of a building consensus position between key climate scientists and sceptics on the existence of a slowdown. The paper rejected the finding of other scientists that “claims of a hiatus in global warming lack sound scientific basis”. Those scientists sceptical of the hiatus had “benchmarked the recent slowdown against a baseline period that includes times with a lower rate of increase in greenhouse forcing”, it said.

In keeping with the latest research findings, last year’s paper said the reduction arose though the combined effects of internal decadal variability, volcanic and solar activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing. These findings contrast with the harsh criticism levelled at sceptics who first highlighted the existence of the slowdown or pause.

It is why many sceptics advocate a more robust contest of climate science alongside the peer-reviewed process.

The immediate dispute is over whether the spike in global temperatures during the most recent El Nino represented an end to the pause. The latest evidence is that temperatures are returning quickly to pre-El Nino levels.

Noted contrarian Judith Curry argues there are better ways to assess science for policymakers than a consensus-seeking process that she says serves to stifle disagreement and debate. “The climate community has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis on human-caused climate change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus,” Curry says.

pt1

Grendel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2017 at 11:35pm:


Fixed, by highlighting the conclusion of the researchers who did the study, and un-highlighting and the professional P knuckles editorial comments.   

Plus when you add in the warming at the poles any slowdown pretty much disappears.

But the weather record is incredibly noisy. This allows lying charlatans like Dubyne to fool gullible idiots that there is a LIA despite not showing we are in a Grand Solar Minimum.

IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 29 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Flato, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 741–866 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Karl, T. R. et al. Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Science 348, 1469–1472 (2015).
CASPubMedArticle
Cowtan, K. et al. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 6526–6534 (2015).
Article
Hausfather, Z. et al. Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601207 (2017).
Lewandowsky, S., Risbey, J. S. & Oreskes, N. The “pause” in global warming: Turning a routine fluctuation into a problem for science. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 723–733 (2016).
Article
Cahill, N., Rahmstorf, S. & Parnell, A. C. Change points of global temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084002 (2015).
Article
Rajaratnam, B., Romano, J., Tsiang, M. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Debunking the climate hiatus. Climatic Change 133, 129–140 (2015).
Article
Rahmstorf, S., Foster, G. & Cahill, N. Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 054001 (2017).
Article
Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S.-P. Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).
CASISIPubMedArticle
Meehl, G. A., Teng, H. & Arblaster, J. M. Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 898–902 (2014).
Article
Risbey, J. S. et al. Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 835–840 (2014).
Article
England, M. H. et al. Recent intensification of wind–driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 222–227 (2014).
Article
Steinman, B. A., Mann, M. E. & Miller, S. K. Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Science 347, 988–991 (2015).
CASPubMedArticle
Santer, B. D. et al. Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat. Geosci. 7, 185–189 (2014).
CASArticle
Fyfe, J. C. et al. Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 224–228 (2016).
Article
Schmidt, G. A., Shindell, D. T. & Tsigaridis, K. Reconciling warming trends. Nat. Geosci. 7, 1–3 (2014).
Article
Gleisner, H., Thejll, P., Christianson, B. & Nielsen, J. K. Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 510–517 (2014).
Medhaug, I., Stolpe, M. B., Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’. Nature 545, 41–47 (2017).
PubMedArticle
Solomon, S. et al. The persistently variable “background” stratospheric aerosol layer and global climate change. Science 333, 866–870 (2011).
CASISIPubMedArticle
Vernier, J.-P. Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L12807 (2011).
Article
Neely, R. R. et al. Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1–6 (2013).
CASArticle
Ridley, D. A. et al. Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 7763–7769 (2014).
CASISIArticle
Santer, B. D. et al. Observed multivariable signals of late 20th and early 21st century volcanic activity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 500–509 (2015).
Article
Kopp, G. & Lean, J. L. A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: evidence and climate significance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L01706 (2011).
Article
Smith, D. M. et al. Role of volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols in the recent global surface warming slowdown. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 936–940 (2016).
CASArticle
Solomon, S. et al. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science 327, 1219–1223 (2010).
CASPubMedArticle
Christy, J. R. Testimony in Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness (2015); http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/12/data-or-dogma-promoting-open-inquiry-in-the-debate-over-the-magnitude-of-human-impact-on-earth-s-climate
Mears, C. & Wentz, F. J. Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Clim. 29, 3629–3646 (2016).
Po-Chedley, S., Thorsen, T. J. & Fu, Q. Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies. J. Clim. 28, 2274–2290 (2015).
Zou, C.-Z. & Wang, W. Inter-satellite calibration of AMSU-A observations for weather and climate applications. J. Geophys. Res. 116, D23113 (2011).
Cowtan, K. & Way, R. G. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).
ISIArticle
US Senate Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate (2015); http://go.nature.com/2qQjvNL
Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W. & Hnilo, J. J. Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D06

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 5:28am:



But I thouht you said the IPCC was a political body and didn't do science. I do wish you would make up your mind.

lee wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 11:39am:


Feel free to ignore that one, but since you specifically asked which papers the authors based their study on I thought I should include as a matter of academic formality.
There are about 30 more that you can read at your leisure obviously, but I expected you to ignore them.It must be tough when your position has zero support, and your opponents has a mountain of detailed scientific research that supports their position.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2017 at 3:48am:

oh dear English NOT your first language eh.  Well, just read the title and leave it at that eh, then you'll be closer to the mark.  The article includes those paragraphs to show the continued denial of the alarmists with vested interest sonny

Statistical methods are used to analyse plotted behaviour.

The last thing anyone exects to see is a straight line on a time-series.

The fake conservatives don't even know how their world was made