Has the AGW "consensus" come to an end?

[sawyerloggingon]

Maybe if I type it slower?

C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s ?

The models take variability into account. The warming we've seen is within confidence intervals.

In other words you couldn't find anything either.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The consensus has not dissipated among the scientific community. The forthcoming IPCC report will reaffirm the strong level of confidence concerning the role of anthropogenic factors on climate change.

What one has seen in recent years is a slowing of the warming on the surface. Some have grabbed onto that idea as proof for their contrarian beliefs.

The earth's large and persistent energy imbalance is leading to warming at three areas: lower atmosphere, surface, and oceans. The lower atmosphere has warmed most slowly. The surface is undergoing a slowdown in the warming, but a reversal. In part, much of the recent period has been dominated by neutral ENSO or La Niña conditions, not to mention the cold cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The global land and surface anomalies were the warmest on record for the most recent strong La Niña.

If the consensus were wrong, then one should be unable to find the warming throughout the earth's climate system. However, if one goes to the oceans, one finds aggressive warming has been continuing, particularly below 700 meters (0-2000m warming > 0-700 m warming).

A recent paper that highlights the strong warming in the deep ocean can be found at: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

In sum, a look at the entire climate system shows that ongoing warming is continuing unabated. For at least the time being, much of that warming is occurring in the deep ocean.

I'm getting a kick out of this deep ocean excuse. SUDDENLY when it stopped warming the AGW crowd decided the warming is here, it's just hiding. PEEKABOO ! :lamo

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Here is more humorous reading.


In retrospect, we ‘predicted’ global warming would slow :lamo

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Anthony Watts



Reader Markx writes:

The title says it all here: “…Retrospective prediction…” indeed. How could a researcher keep a straight face and write such a title? (Maybe a subversive element at work?)

Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade

Virginie Guemas, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Isabel Andreu-Burillo
& Muhammad Asif

The Abstract:

Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now.

Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions.

Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions."


Anybody want a PRETZEL? :lamo

 

[Threegoofs]

In other words you couldn't find anything either.

Yeah. That's right.

Because if you don't have baseline scientific literacy, the scientists must be wrong because you can't understand them.

 

[Deuce]

Here is more humorous reading.


In retrospect, we ‘predicted’ global warming would slow :lamo

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Anthony Watts



Reader Markx writes:

The title says it all here: “…Retrospective prediction…” indeed. How could a researcher keep a straight face and write such a title? (Maybe a subversive element at work?)

Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade

Virginie Guemas, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Isabel Andreu-Burillo
& Muhammad Asif

The Abstract:

Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now.

Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions.

Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions."


Anybody want a PRETZEL? :lamo

Further proof that the so-called skeptics really misunderstand the fundamental nature of climate models.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The last 15 years of relatively stable temps fits into the model for AGW since AGW models would all anticipate pauses like this. Nothing has changed in climate science models to accommodate this reality, and nothing would need to.

I always hear this, that the models anticipate fluctuations in temperatures...

Let's see these fluctuations in ANY of the projections??

In reading the abstracts on papers, it's always CLAIMED that all conceivable variables are accounted for, yet that would necessitate a level of fluctuations in temperatures, but instead the projections all seem to resemble the stupid hockey stick graph...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Further proof that the so-called skeptics really misunderstand the fundamental nature of climate models.

We understand all to well what is going on here. When things don't go as the AGW hypotheses predicts, its proponents scramble feverishly to explain it away or to say they really did predict it in retrospect and it is all part of a model they have locked away in a secret vault somewhere. When the data first came out that the earth has not warmed in over a decade there was first denial and then when it became undeniable the warmer crowd started either making excuses or saying they actually predicted this before they denied it. Kind of like "I voted for the war before I voted against it". :lol:

 

[Threegoofs]

I always hear this, that the models anticipate fluctuations in temperatures...

Let's see these fluctuations in ANY of the projections??

In reading the abstracts on papers, it's always CLAIMED that all conceivable variables are accounted for, yet that would necessitate a level of fluctuations in temperatures, but instead the projections all seem to resemble the stupid hockey stick graph...

What's not clear about Confidence Intervals?

Oh,right. Basic statistical knowledge.

 

[donsutherland1]

I'm getting a kick out of this deep ocean excuse. SUDDENLY when it stopped warming the AGW crowd decided the warming is here, it's just hiding. PEEKABOO ! :lamo

The warming measureable and has been measured. To ignore the oceans would be no different from suggesting that let's say Chicago is cool therefore the world is cool, even if most of the rest of the world were warm. The oceans are part of the earth's climate system. Hence, whether they are warming matters within the context of the climate change issue. That the earth has a measured energy imbalance, the warming has to show up somewhere in the earth's climate system (at least if one accepts the principle of the conservation of energy). The land masses are still warming but more slowly in recent years that would be implied by the energy imbalance says that one must look elsewhere in the climate system. The deep ocean is where the warming has been most robust and that warming is not a matter of theory of modeling. It has been measured. Consequently, there is no "missing" heat, even as the land masses have seen a temporary slowdown in the warming.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The warming measureable and has been measured. To ignore the oceans would be no different from suggesting that let's say Chicago is cool therefore the world is cool, even if most of the rest of the world were warm. The oceans are part of the earth's climate system. Hence, whether they are warming matters within the context of the climate change issue. That the earth has a measured energy imbalance, the warming has to show up somewhere in the earth's climate system (at least if one accepts the principle of the conservation of energy). The land masses are still warming but more slowly in recent years that would be implied by the energy imbalance says that one must look elsewhere in the climate system. The deep ocean is where the warming has been most robust and that warming is not a matter of theory of modeling. It has been measured. Consequently, there is no "missing" heat, even as the land masses have seen a temporary slowdown in the warming.

From my earlier post:


" Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage."

So you see this deep water heat storage thing is not proven, it is just a proposed hypotheses to explain why the AGW hypotheses isn't panning out. These layers upon layers of supporting hypotheses are getting ridiculous.

 

[Dezaad]

Can you show me those models? The only so called predictions of this "pause" I can find are retrospective CYA so called predictions. Can you show me when this was predicted ahead of the event?

You still haven't said whether you would have predicted pauses and cooling if YOU had developed the model for AGW. I have asked you several times if you imagined AGW to be real, would you really expect the increase in temperature to proceed without pauses. You make yourself out to be able to analyze these things, so don't play dumb now!

What do you think is more reasonable? AGW that proceeds with periods of increasing temperatures, cooling temperatures and flat temperatures that, on net, reveal overall increasing temperatures. Or would it be AGW that proceeds smoothly, each year the temp increasing , never pausing, never varying much from the normal increase.

The record of increasing temperatures for the period up to 15 years ago didn't increase smoothly. WHY would you think they hadn't noticed that?

No one ever claimed it would be smooth, and they built unpredictable variation into their models to account for such eventualities. You know it wouldn't have been rational for them to predict a smooth increase, even if AGW is real, so you think you are what? Smarter than they are?

This pause is truly a stupid criticism of AGW, and the author of the OP article should know better. Can we just move on to smarter criticisms???

 

[Threegoofs]

This pause is truly a stupid criticism of AGW, and the author of the OP article should know better. Can we just move on to smarter criticisms???

I see you haven't met Sawyer and Hays yet.

They have a new one every week.

 

[Dezaad]

I see you haven't met Sawyer and Hays yet.

They have a new one every week.

It is really unfortunate, because there are far more reasonable issues to explore, and this forum so often gets stuck exploring these petty, meaningless criticisms.

But on one level, lay AGW people are partly to blame for this. It is impossible to say whether any particular shorter term happening is evidence of AGW. AGW scientists repeat this constantly to the news media, and then they usually report it at the end of the article, after they have quoted all the alarmist non-scientists and idiotic skeptics they can find.

It truly is a disservice. But if we are going to be serious news consumers, we have to filter the news with the knowledge that the strongest bias of the news media is for the sensational. They don't get so outrageous that we mistake them for The National Enquirer, but really every bit as deceptive.

I never misunderstood the science, so I expected such eventualities, and even warned fellow lay AGW people from time to time. Sawyerloggingon is clearly so far gone into the right wing fantasy land that he has no clue at all what science is saying. I think it suits him fine, as that leaves it so that he can just believe it is saying whatever he wants to believe it is saying.

Unless you honestly answer the question, Sawyerloggingon....

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You still haven't said whether you would have predicted pauses and cooling if YOU had developed the model for AGW. I have asked you several times if you imagined AGW to be real, would you really expect the increase in temperature to proceed without pauses. You make yourself out to be able to analyze these things, so don't play dumb now!

What do you think is more reasonable? AGW that proceeds with periods of increasing temperatures, cooling temperatures and flat temperatures that, on net, reveal overall increasing temperatures. Or would it be AGW that proceeds smoothly, each year the temp increasing , never pausing, never varying much from the normal increase.

The record of increasing temperatures for the period up to 15 years ago didn't increase smoothly. WHY would you think they hadn't noticed that?

No one ever claimed it would be smooth, and they built unpredictable variation into their models to account for such eventualities. You know it wouldn't have been rational for them to predict a smooth increase, even if AGW is real, so you think you are what? Smarter than they are?

This pause is truly a stupid criticism of AGW, and the author of the OP article should know better. Can we just move on to smarter criticisms???

If C02 were as strong a driving factor in climate as advertised there is no way barring some huge even cataclysmic event that in this era of third world industrialization and soaring man made C02 levels that you would not have seen evidence of a C02 warming correlation. AGW is dead, bury it.

 

[Dezaad]

If C02 were as strong a driving factor in climate as advertised there is no way barring some huge even cataclysmic event that in this era of third world industrialization and soaring man made C02 levels that you would not have seen evidence of a C02 warming correlation. AGW is dead, bury it.

A correlation may or may not exist, but this thread isn't about that. This thread is about whether this pause fits into the models for AGW. You have had it explained to you that it does, on account of the variability they built into their predictions. Instead of rebutting that, you keep trying to change the subject to the longer term picture. If you stand by your OP, then attack the assertion that variability built into the models is scientific. That is really your only way to "win" that I can see.

Why do you think that the increase in temperatures should progress along a smooth trajectory, if CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

A correlation may or may not exist, but this thread isn't about that. This thread is about whether this pause fits into the models for AGW. You have had it explained to you that it does, on account of the variability they built into their predictions. Instead of rebutting that, you keep trying to change the subject to the longer term picture. If you stand by your OP, then attack the assertion that variability built into the models is scientific. That is really your only way to "win" that I can see.

Why do you think that the increase in temperatures should progress along a smooth trajectory, if CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas?

C02 is in fact a naturally occurring part of nature, warmers labeled it a green house gas. Don't exhale, you'll warm the planet.:lol:

 

[Dezaad]

C02 is in fact a naturally occurring part of nature, warmers labeled it a green house gas. Don't exhale, you'll warm the planet.:lol:

Do you see what you did there? You are not even addressing your own point (OP). I keep trying to talk about the subject you started, and you keep trying to change the subject. Do you not see how that makes it seem like you don't even think that you have any substance behind your claims?

Am I out of line here?

 

[donsutherland1]

From my earlier post:


" Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage."

So you see this deep water heat storage thing is not proven, it is just a proposed hypotheses to explain why the AGW hypotheses isn't panning out. These layers upon layers of supporting hypotheses are getting ridiculous.

Several points:

1. Retrospective forecasts (along with hindcasts) are approaches used to test and improve models.
2. Until recently, there were significant questions about the slowdown in the rate of observed warming (land and sea surface temperatures).
3. If the conclusions of the climate models were reasonably accurate, one had to account for that phenomenon. The warming had to be somewhere in the earth's climate system.
4. The paper in question and a separate paper found evidence of ocean heat uptake.
5. When retrospective forecasting is applied, the phenomenon is accounted for quite well. Hence, the authors' strengthened confidence in the climate models. In contrast, had the retrospective forecasts proved poor, there would have been reason for reduced confidence in the climate models.

Is there a degree of uncertainty? There is. But the finding is robust, so the area of uncertainty is small.

 

[Dezaad]

Several points:

1. Retrospective forecasts (along with hindcasts) are approaches used to test and improve models.
2. Until recently, there were significant questions about the slowdown in the rate of observed warming (land and sea surface temperatures).
3. If the conclusions of the climate models were reasonably accurate, one had to account for that phenomenon. The warming had to be somewhere in the earth's climate system.
4. The paper in question and a separate paper found evidence of ocean heat uptake.
5. When retrospective forecasting is applied, the phenomenon is accounted for quite well. Hence, the authors' strengthened confidence in the climate models. In contrast, had the retrospective forecasts proved poor, there would have been reason for reduced confidence in the climate models.

Is there a degree of uncertainty? There is. But the finding is robust, so the area of uncertainty is small.

I am starting to wonder if he even tries to understand this kind of analysis. But, thank you for posting it. It is very concise and informative.

 

[Jack Hays]

Several points:

1. Retrospective forecasts (along with hindcasts) are approaches used to test and improve models.
2. Until recently, there were significant questions about the slowdown in the rate of observed warming (land and sea surface temperatures).
3. If the conclusions of the climate models were reasonably accurate, one had to account for that phenomenon. The warming had to be somewhere in the earth's climate system.
4. The paper in question and a separate paper found evidence of ocean heat uptake.
5. When retrospective forecasting is applied, the phenomenon is accounted for quite well. Hence, the authors' strengthened confidence in the climate models. In contrast, had the retrospective forecasts proved poor, there would have been reason for reduced confidence in the climate models.

Is there a degree of uncertainty? There is. But the finding is robust, so the area of uncertainty is small.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" eace

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Several points:

1. Retrospective forecasts (along with hindcasts) are approaches used to test and improve models.
2. Until recently, there were significant questions about the slowdown in the rate of observed warming (land and sea surface temperatures).
3. If the conclusions of the climate models were reasonably accurate, one had to account for that phenomenon. The warming had to be somewhere in the earth's climate system.
4. The paper in question and a separate paper found evidence of ocean heat uptake.
5. When retrospective forecasting is applied, the phenomenon is accounted for quite well. Hence, the authors' strengthened confidence in the climate models. In contrast, had the retrospective forecasts proved poor, there would have been reason for reduced confidence in the climate models.

Is there a degree of uncertainty? There is. But the finding is robust, so the area of uncertainty is small.

See this is where you guys lose me, you are so convinced your hypotheses is right that when it goes wrong you desperately look for a reason to explain it away instead of maybe thinking your initial idea was off base. You are emotionally wedded to AGW and like Weiners wife nothing will sway you.

 

[Jack Hays]

See this is where you guys lose me, you are so convinced your hypotheses is right that when it goes wrong you desperately look for a reason to explain it away instead of maybe thinking your initial idea was off base. You are emotionally wedded to AGW and like Weiners wife nothing will sway you.

Bingo.

 

[Dezaad]

See this is where you guys lose me, you are so convinced your hypotheses is right that when it goes wrong you desperately look for a reason to explain it away instead of maybe thinking your initial idea was off base. You are emotionally wedded to AGW and like Weiners wife nothing will sway you.

Except that there really is evidence of the ocean taking up more heat, as he states in his very next point. Did you miss how the thoughts were connected?

If there hadn't been this evidence then the theory would be weakened. Or are you just complaining about the complexity of the climate system. Are you of the position that the global climate system is a simple one, and that AGW science is making it out to be more complex than it really is?

 

[donsutherland1]

See this is where you guys lose me, you are so convinced your hypotheses is right that when it goes wrong you desperately look for a reason to explain it away instead of maybe thinking your initial idea was off base. You are emotionally wedded to AGW and like Weiners wife nothing will sway you.

The climate models are based on, among other things, the laws of physics. The Greenhouse Effect is non-controversial. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing. If the Greenhouse Effect is real, that should lead to a positive energy imbalance. That imbalance has been measured.

If there's a positive energy imbalance and if the principle of the conservation of energy is correct (that energy cannot be created nor destroyed), then that imbalance can't have zero impact. It should lead to heating.

With the recent slowing in surface warming (land and ocean surface), one would have to find the warming either in the atmosphere and/or ocean. It hasn't shown up in the atmosphere. It was measured in the ocean (particularly below 700 meters).

Where uncertainty exists is the exact sensitivity of the earth's climate response to a doubling of CO2 on account of complex feedbacks, some of which are not well-understood. In other words, the warming might be somewhat more modest or it could be even greater than currently thought. Zero warming does not have serious scientific support.

The problem for those rejecting the idea that an increase in atmospheric CO2 should lead to a warming response (exact magnitude is subject to some uncertainty) is that they have no robust alternative to explain the observed warming that has been occurring. They have no mechanism that robustly explains the observed temperature trends, particularly since the mid-20th century. Yet, when CO2 is added to the natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.), the replication of the warming is pretty good.

Absent such a mechanism(s), their argument rests on either CO2's not having greenhouse gas properties and/or the principle of the conservation of energy's not being accurate. Both are extremely remote possibilities. Indeed, the existence of a persistent energy imbalance reaffirms the Greenhouse Effect. The oceanic heat content data reaffirms the principle of the conservation of energy.

 

[Jack Hays]

The climate models are based on, among other things, the laws of physics. The Greenhouse Effect is non-controversial. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing. If the Greenhouse Effect is real, that should lead to a positive energy imbalance. That imbalance has been measured.

If there's a positive energy imbalance and if the principle of the conservation of energy is correct (that energy cannot be created nor destroyed), then that imbalance can't have zero impact. It should lead to heating.

With the recent slowing in surface warming (land and ocean surface), one would have to find the warming either in the atmosphere and/or ocean. It hasn't shown up in the atmosphere. It was measured in the ocean (particularly below 700 meters).

Where uncertainty exists is the exact sensitivity of the earth's climate response to a doubling of CO2 on account of complex feedbacks, some of which are not well-understood. In other words, the warming might be somewhat more modest or it could be even greater than currently thought. Zero warming does not have serious scientific support.

The problem for those rejecting the idea that an increase in atmospheric CO2 should lead to a warming response (exact magnitude is subject to some uncertainty) is that they have no robust alternative to explain the observed warming that has been occurring. They have no mechanism that robustly explains the observed temperature trends, particularly since the mid-20th century. Yet, when CO2 is added to the natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.), the replication of the warming is pretty good.

Absent such a mechanism(s), their argument rests on either CO2's not having greenhouse gas properties and/or the principle of the conservation of energy's not being accurate. Both are extremely remote possibilities. Indeed, the existence of a persistent energy imbalance reaffirms the Greenhouse Effect. The oceanic heat content data reaffirms the principle of the conservation of energy.

Observed tempature trends of the last century are not outside historical (and pre-industrial) norms, and the work of Professor Svensmark points to an entirely different climate paradigm.:mrgreen: