Another attempt to dismiss the warming pause falls short

Posted: November 22, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, pause, Temperature
Tags:

Credit: planetsave.com


‘Reports of the death of the global warming pause have been greatly exaggerated’, says David Whitehouse at The GWPF. If temperatures really were climbing would anyone bother with this sort of ‘science’?

A new paper in Nature Climate Change concludes that the so-called pause in global surface temperatures never happened. The paper has been mentioned in a few media outlets.

It claims that new data from the Arctic makes the pause go away – and so it seems until you look at the paper in a little more detail than news headlines suggest.

Xiangdong Zhang of the International Arctic Research Centre and colleagues produce a new estimate of the trend in global temperature that includes their new data on the Arctic. It is 0.112°C per decade, as opposed to a previous 0.05°C per decade, for the period 1998-2012. Once again one notes the unscholarly accuracy of a thousandth of a degree which is unwarranted by the errors in the data. They therefore conclude that the pause never existed.

For the Arctic they give a warming estimate of 0.659°C per decade making it, as expected, the fastest warming region on Earth.

Consider for a moment what this means if one accepts the most recent analysis. Without the Arctic data the global temperature paused, i.e. only one region is contributing to global warming, and a region where it has been estimated about half is due to natural factors.

The trend calculations of surface temperatures carried out in the recent paper are inadequate. Over and over again it has been pointed out that start and end points must be variable, and errors properly accounted for, to obtain a fair estimate given annual variability.

Their Figure 2 illustrates this point.

Continued here.
– – –
Also: 2017 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE: TOO EARLY TO TELL – Date: 07/11/17 Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor

Scientists Are Still Trying To Convince Us The Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Didn’t Happen | Daily Caller

Comments
  1. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Balderdash, piffle and a rather strong dose of “it’s worse than we thought” seem to be the only ingredients required to get “climate science” published and then echoed ad nauseam in a mainstream media sinking under the tsunami waves of it’s own fake news. We all know it just means this;

    Cake is bad – you can’t have any!

  2. oldbrew says:

    Just weather no doubt… 😎

    Historic snowfall for Jackson Hole Wyoming – More than 100 inches of snow
    November 21, 2017

    “Resort business development director Bill Lewkowitz said the amount of snow on the upper mountain is incredible.”

    http://www.iceagenow.info/historic-snowfall-jackson-hole-wyoming-100-inches-snow/

  3. “[The new analysis] is 0.112°C per decade, as opposed to a previous 0.05°C per decade, for the period 1998-2012. ”
    —-
    “Without the Arctic data the global temperature paused”

    These seem to be in conflict, no? 0.05°C per decade is warming, just not as much warming.

    I’m not sure a 14-year slowdown in the rise of temps matters much anyway. Is it even statistically significant? If you look at 20-year trends, or 30-year trends.. there’s definitely no pause.

    [reply] 0.05°C per decade would not be ‘statistically significant’, that’s for sure

  4. Ned Nikolov says:

    I just sent the following email to Prof. Zhang, the corresponding author of the above paper published in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0009-5)

    ———————————————-
    Dear Prof. Zhang,

    I came across your latest paper “Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend” and decided to drop you this note …

    Reading your article made me realize that you understand well that the debate about the so-called “hiatus” has been intense simply because the global temperature must follow the nearly linear increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration in order for the current “greenhouse” climate theory to survive. It has came to public attention that the attempt to match the global temperature trend to the CO2 trend was the main driver behind NOAA’s inappropriate manipulation of SST measurements in 2015 documented in the now infamous paper by Thomas Karl. However, such desperate efforts to “fit” observations to a “theory” will become unnecessary (and mute) if one realizes that perhaps CO2 has never been a driver of climate.

    In this regard, I thought you might find interesting these 2 papers presenting results from a new analysis of the “greenhouse effect”. Using vetted NASA planetary data and rigorous math we show that there has been a fundamental confusion about the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect for nearly two centuries, i.e. since the “greenhouse” concept was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1827… Believe it or not, paradigm shifts are still possible in science even in areas that are thought to have been “settled” for over 100 years!

    Volokin D, ReLlez L (2014) On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect. SpringerPlus 3:723 doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723?site=springerplus.springeropen.com

    Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

    I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have …

    Best Regards,
    Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
    Physical Scientist
    ————————————————————–

  5. Phoenix44 says:

    There is no “new data” from the past available (unless they have discovered weather stations we didn’t know about). All they can do is take the existing data and play around with it.

    Have they made it more accurate? We literally cannot know. I really struggle to see the point if producing new numbers which we have no way of verifying, simply to then claim that something unverifiable proves something.

  6. oldbrew says:

    As Ned Nikolov says (above), they are struggling to match the data to existing theory. Good data doesn’t lie.

    This hints that there’s a problem with the theory, maybe a big problem. Have they got cloud data yet, for example?
    – – –
    NEW BOOK: CLIMATE POLICY CART LED CLIMATE SCIENCE HORSE
    Date: 23/11/17 Global Warming Policy Foundation

    New history of global warming science reveals that discovery of man-made influence was a political demand.

    London, 23 November 2017. A new book on the origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the global warming movement reveals that the 1995 discovery of ‘discernible’ evidence for a man-made influence on climate was a response to demands of politicians keen to regulate energy usage.

    It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded “a discernible human influence on global climate”.

    Based on interviews with many of the key participants, author Bernie Lewin shows how climate science never was a driver of the policy movement and then how in 1995 policy demands began to drive the science.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/new-book-climate-policy-cart-led-climate-science-horse/

    ‘policy demands began to drive the science’ – there’s the real problem, or one of them.