Climate Science Is Settled. Really?

Warm in hereReasonSeveral fascinating new scientific papers have appeared recently that come to some very different conclusions about the trend in global average temperature and what causes it. One concludes that fluctuations in the El Nino explain the current 15-year "pause" in warming and cut future increases in man-made warming in half; a second finds that once missing data are taken into account there has been NO pause in warming at all; and a third reports that natural fluctuations in the Arctic explain the "pause" which could last until 2030.

So first, in a new article in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville researchers Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell use climate models to take into account the effects that natural variations in the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has on global average temperature trends over the past 50 years. The ENSO is a phenomenon in which the surface temperatures over the southern Pacific Ocean fluctuate between hot and cold phases. According to Phys.org, they found:

The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and the deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.

"As a result, because as much as 50 percent of the warming since the 1970s could be attributed to stronger El Niño activity, it suggests that the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed," Spencer said.

"Basically, previously it was believed that if we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, sea surface temperatures would warm about 2.5 C," Spencer said. That's 4.5° F. "But when we factor in the ENSO warming, we see only a 1.3 C (about 2.3° F) final total warming after the climate system has adjusted to having twice as much CO2." ...

Spencer said it is reasonable to suspect that the increased La Niña cooling might be largely responsible for an ongoing "pause" in global warming that has lasted more than a decade. If that is the case, weak warming might be expected to revive when this phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle shifts back to a warmer El Niño period.

In contrast, climate catastrophists cite as evidence that things are worse than they thought a new study in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society by Kevin Cowtan from the University of York and Robert Way from the University of Ottawa (who both also contribute to the climate science website Skeptical Science). The two researchers apply some fancy statistical jiggering to climate temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom in an effort to figure out what is going on in the regions of the globe not well-covered by that dataset. They report:

The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

The Guardian reports that the upshot of their new analysis is:

Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.

Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively.

In other words, there is no 15-year pause in global warming has all of the current datasets measuring global average temperature have reported.

And to make things even more "settled," there is a new study in Climate Dynamics by Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Currry and her colleague Marcia Wyatt that looks at temperature fluctuations in the Arctic region and finds that they are driven by natural "stadium wave" fluctuations produced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. As Newswise reports the ...

...‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last...

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt,...

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." ...

How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation,” Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming.

Interestingly, the study by Cowtan and Way suggesting that man-made global warming is continuing apace seems to be getting much more media attention than are the two suggesting explanations for why warming has paused and why it might not increase disastrously in the future. Curious.

Heads up: I will be sending in daily dispatches all next week from the 19th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Warsaw.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    So much consensus, so little dissent. I don't see how Denialists can claim to be skeptics when it's all so clear and precise.

  • Warty||

    I know you're a real skeptic, because you believe in climate change.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I, like Heraclitus, see all reality as in flux, changing from moment to moment. So yes, I do believe in climate change, for, like a river, one never wades into the same climate more than once.

  • Brett L||

    Its obviously warmer than the Last Ice Age and cooler than the era preceding the Yucatan asteroid strike. So... yes, I believe in climate change.

    Whether man has a primary or even secondary effect on the temperature at the Earth's surface is less well resolved in my mind.

    So, obviously, I'm a flat-Earth, Creationist, Denialist.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's not even that.

    It's pretty clear the temps are going up in the big picture. It's whether the science is solid enough to be used as a driving force behind drastic policies that will fuck everyone. That answer is no, it is not.

  • robc||


    It's pretty clear the temps are going up in the big picture.

    False.

    It's pretty clear the temps are going down in the big picture. Heat death of the universe is the only climate change Im 100% sure about.

  • Warty||

    THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

  • Pro Libertate||

    LET THERE BE LIGHT.

  • prolefeed||

    Depends on how big your picture is. In the somewhat shorter run than the heat death scenario, the sun will turn into a red giant and expand to where the earth is inside its radius, killing all life.

    Pretty sure people won't be responsible for that warming, though.

  • PD Scott||

    Yes, we will, because we failed to take meaningful steps now to prevent it. Our use of technology obviously angers the giant fire god in the sky. We should immediately return to a pre-industrial level (all that electric light is exactly like giving the Sun the finger), the billions of people dying will hopefully appease the giant fire god in the sky's anger, a sacrifice to save Gaia.

  • Zeb||

    OK, let's stick to the relatively tiny big picture of the next few hundred years.

    I am somewhat convinced that temperatures are going up on the whole in that sort of timescale.
    But I am entirely convinced that no policy short of total nuclear war will do anything to significantly change whatever the human contribution is.
    And I am not convinced at all that the negatives of warming will outweigh the positives fro humanity in general (though I do like snowy winters and would be sad to have to move to Canada to have that).

  • Brett L||

    Two things:
    1) It is my belief that the system is too complex to be tunable. So any affect we have on it will not be the one intended
    2) Nobody, to my knowledge, has identified an optimum, but thus far more food and fewer net deaths from temperature extremes have resulted

  • prolefeed||

    If you define the optimum temperature as the revealed preference for where people choose to live, on average people prefer a warmer globe than the one we live on.

    If you use the revealed preference of where people will set a room's thermostat if cost of heating or cooling is no object, mid to high 70s is what people prefer on average, which is considerably warmer than the global average.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Though I haven't seen it explicitly stated, in the political debate about climate change policy the optimum seems to be more of an upper limit, beyond which the changes are predicted to significantly upset the status quo.

  • robc||

    mid to high 70s is what people prefer on average

    ???

    Really?

    I set mine at 72 in summer and 68/63 in winter (68 daytime, 63 nightime). If cost wasnt an object the summer one might be 68 and the winter 72/63.

    Wouldnt change my average of 70 at all.

  • robc||

    Im not saying Im the norm, I just dont see people setting the T in the high 70s in the summer if they had free A/C.

  • Zeb||

    the revealed preference for where people choose to live

    THe problem with that is that most people don't really choose to live where they live. That's just where they were born.

  • sarcasmic||

    When your premise is that human activity is causing the climate to change, it's no surprise that your conclusion is that human activity is causing the climate to change.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yep.

  • prolefeed||

    OTOH, if your premise is that tiny marginal changes in atmospheric CO2 will have tiny marginal effects on climate, you're a "denialist".

  • sarcasmic||

    If you think science involves the scientific method then you're a denialist. Consensus is the new science.

  • ||

    "The science is settled.."

    Why do I mostly hear these words from philosophy and liberal arts majors?

    When you're so incompetent in a biology lab that you can't focus a microscope on a labeled slide, you have no business telling others about science.

  • fredtyg||

    Exactly. Seems to me recent news about "scientists" trying to explain away the Earth not warming as much as they claim it should be is proof they based their whole premise for research- from the start- on humans causing global warming.

    You'd think when it first became know their models were wrong they might think "Maybe we got this a bit wrong?".

    Nope. Instead, they scurry for excuses, such as the heat went into the ocean.This isn't objective science on the Believers' part.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun

    I'm guessing this is a mistake in the Phys.org write-up. The energy *received* from the Sun is a function only of the energy emitted by the Sun, the Earth-Sun distance, the size of the Earth, and maybe the Earth's albedo, depending on whether you define "received" as all energy incident on the Earth or only what is absorbed by the Earth's surface/atmosphere. Unless they are saying that the El Nino significantly affects Earth's albedo (I guess through much enhanced cloud cover?).

    Ron, could you clarify?

  • Ron Bailey||

    L: Both changes in clouds and ocean mixing. From Phys.org:

    Before an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, global cloud cover decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the Earth's surface and be converted into heat. On the flip side, before a La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling event, cloud cover increases, shading more of the Earth's surface and reflecting an increased amount of solar energy back into space.

    While changes in cloud cover intensify the warming or cooling of these ocean events, Spencer and Braswell still found that two-thirds of the sea surface temperature changes during both El Niño and La Niña events are driven by changes in ocean mixing. But the one-third forcing by clouds turns out to be an important component, substantially changing the interpretation of how sensitive the climate system is to CO2 emissions.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Thanks. Do you know if the changes in cloud cover during these events has been observed and measured over the past few cycles, or is this something that the models spit out?

  • Ron Bailey||

    L: Observed by satellites.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Thanks again. I appreciate that you provide this sort of feedback so often.

  • playa manhattan||

    +1. Thanks for wading through this cesspool.

  • Warty||

    But enough about what your mom told me last night.

  • playa manhattan||

    Up until this point, I was one of the few people who didn't participate in the whole Warty rape meme. Up until this point....

  • Warty||

    But enough of what your mom told me last night.

  • Bill||

    Isn't 0.11 or 0.12 degrees per decade still 1/2 to 1/3 what the GCMs say we should be seeing? This still works out to 1.2 C per hundred years unless it starts to become exponential (non-linear anyway).

  • robc||

    Im going to go with LP1477 on this.

    Reflected energy is received, then resent. So El Nino isnt changing the amount received.

  • Brett L||

    rob,

    You can't expect them to do basic black-body radiation calculations. Then they'd have to take in to account the variance in solar energy.

  • robc||

    You can't expect them to do basic black-body radiation calculations.

    Yes I can.

    Im just a lowly engineer, I can expect fucking scientists and science journalists to do it right.

  • MSimon||

    +69

  • robc||

    And I googled to verify, but I was correct. In "reflection" photons are absorbed then ejected.

    So it isnt the same photons going back out.

    The earth receives the energy then emits some of it.

    So at the photon level the statement above is complete bullshit.

  • Brett L||

    Some are refracted?

  • robc||

    Some.

    But even some of that is probably absorption and emission.

  • Zeb||

    Oh, yeah, definitely. Whenever light travels through a medium, there is pretty much constant absorption and emission.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, technically that's how it works, but since photons are all the same (+/- some redshift) it's not terribly interesting.

    What they want to say is that the net energy gain due to solar radiation falling on the planet minus reflected solar radiation.

    You can quibble about the terminology all day (and why not?), but I think you know what they mean.

  • prolefeed||

    Depends on what layer of the atmosphere you define as "receiving" the solar energy. It doesn't seem unreasonable to talk about the lowest layer -- the part people inhabit" -- as being the relevant part receiving energy when talking about human welfare, if you're clear about what you mean by that.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Curious how all of these studies start from the presumption that the models are more or less correct and that we're in a hiatus rather than something more permanent. That global warming is absolutely correct, they've just got some of the finer details wrong. They all presume that after a hiatus, the end will still be nigh.

  • playa manhattan||

    It's only a "pause" if you really want it to keep going up.

  • sarcasmic||

    Circular logic is circular.

  • Brett L||

    I'm sure that all of these models take into account variable solar energy reaching the upper atmosphere, too, right? Because there has been pretty significant solar variability in the last 100 years and we already have some correlative evidence on sunspots and observed temperatures.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Denialists would shut up if the politicians would concede a carbon tax.

    OT: Private investment group offers $52 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/st.....r=yahootix

  • Floridian||

    Do you mean concede as in not propose carbon tax?

  • WTF||

    It has no clue what it means, it's a moron sock puppet.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, Denialists are driven by political motive.

  • sarcasmic||

    And those who want to use climate change to exert political control over virtually every nuance of human activity are not politically motivated. Sure. Whatever you say.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Don't argue with him.

    He's a libertarian.

  • sarcasmic||

    He's a moron.

  • Sevo||

    "And those who want to use climate change to exert political control over virtually every nuance of human activity are not politically motivated."
    As pure as yellow snow!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Palin's Fuckbuddy:

    The political motives of assholes such as yourself drive my political motives.

  • Floridian||

    Environmentalist don't understand people at a basic level. People don't like being forced to do things. People do like saving money. Instead of telling people what they can and can't buy I think it would be more effective to educate people on ways to conserve energy. Lower water/power bills are a better sell than do what I say or I'll put you in jail.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do what I say or I'll put you in jail is easier and more effective. And it's fun because it gives you the power to fuck up anyone who doesn't cooperate.

  • Floridian||

    I keep forgetting the real motive. Thanks.

  • Tybus||

    I don't think a carbon tax is unreasonable.It's a small price to pay as long as I'm promised that I can keep my current climate.

  • sarcasmic||

    What if those people making promises are not being honest with you?

  • Tybus||

    Impossible!

  • Brett L||

    Classic "pump and dump". Let the suckers drive the price to $5, blame the government when they hole a plan that was never going to work and get out with 100%+ gains.

  • l0b0t||

    Best Beer Batter Bread

    3 Cups self-rising flour
    3 Tablespoons sugar
    12 Ounces your favorite beer
    1 stick of butter divided

    Heat oven to 350.
    Mix together all ingredients except butter and place into 9x5 greased loaf pan. Melt butter and pour 4 tablespoons over top of dough. Bake for 20 minutes, then pour remaining 4 tablespoons of butter over top of dough. Continue baking for another 40 minutes. Remove to wire rack to cool.

  • robc||

    clap clap clap

    recipes in response to trolls is the correct thing to do.

    Will two hearted really make good bread?

    I think something less hoppy and more malty would do better, but you said favorite.

  • sarcasmic||

    Made my first ale of the season last weekend.

    Mashed 12# pale, .5# crystal, 1oz each Black Patent, Chocolate Malt and roasted barley at a bit above 150.
    Gave it 2oz Fuggle for 60, .5 for 45 and another .5 for 30. Plan to dry hop with another .5.
    Hit 1.056 for 5.5 gallons. Not the best efficiency, but what do you expect from a Corona mill? I need to get a crusher. Pitched two packages of Safale US-05. Took off like a rocket and produced more heat than I anticipated. Got up to 72 for a day, but I got it back down to the mid 60s.
    Calling it Darth Fuggle because of the dark color and single hop.
    I think it will be good.

  • Raston Bot||

    1056 doesn't sound too bad for grains you crushed yourself. I had a tendency to over-crush but low OGs beat that out of me.

  • robc||

    1 oz each of the darks doesnt seem like it would do much. Well, the 1 oz of Roasted would give a bunch of color.

  • sarcasmic||

    The dark malts are more for color than anything else. And a little nuttiness.

  • Killazontherun||

    I can't believe that I missed out a brewing and recipe thread for the mere pleasure of having all my assignments turned in on time. I'm doing some brewing tonight and wanted to talk about it.

  • l0b0t||

    In my experience, and I make this bread at least once per month, only stouts should be avoided; Guinness bread (via this recipe) was a wasteful disaster. IPAs have been quite good but, to be honest, the best bread so far came from a can of Schlitz (college favorite).

  • playa manhattan||

    I can see myself making this with beers I would never consider drinking. Bud light lime, for instance.

  • sarcasmic||

    I like to drink hops, but I'm not too keen on eating them. When I cook with beer I use light American lagers, otherwise known as piss.

  • playa manhattan||

    There is a local carniceria that sells beer marinated carne asada/skirt steak. It is amazing, and they sell over 300lbs in a busy weekend. The guy told me that they use Busch beer, as it is the only one that doesn't leave off flavors after grilling on high heat.

    You couldn't pay me to drink Busch, but i'll be damned if it isn't one of the best marinade bases I've ever tasted.

  • Killazontherun||

    My uncle uses that as he marinating base too, must be something to it.

  • Zeb||

    light American lagers, otherwise known as piss.

    I prefer to think of them as beer flavored soda.

  • Killazontherun||

    I prefer to think of them as beer flavored soda.

    This. Most of them are drinkable, they're just not quality.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Same goes for Flemish Carbonades. Shitty beer seems to be better for cooking. Save the good stuff for drinking.

  • R C Dean||

    I would say that for stews and such, there is no substitute for Guiness. Its like that stuff was made to simmer meat in.

  • playa manhattan||

    There used to be lots of good recipes around here. I hope he keeps trolling until someone posts a good carne asada recipe that I haven't tried before.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Can somebody gather up all of the trolling response recipes that have been posted on reason? Also, the entire lonewacko story? And have it on my desk by tomorrow morning.

  • playa manhattan||

    I would also like an explanation for STEVE SMITH.

  • Swiss Servator craves Rösti||

    "I would also like an explanation for STEVE SMITH."

    Sasquatch + RAPE = STEVE SMITH.

    Simple.

  • Zeb||

    It all started with this guy:
    http://smythesworld.blogspot.com/

    Picture on the left is clearly part Sasquatch.
    Somehow a reasonably nice (but not particularly libertarian) occasional commenter on H&R was transformed into a legendary ape-like creature with a penchant for rape and destruction. I believe it is all Warty's fault.

  • playa manhattan||

    Oh shit! That dude only lives 20 minutes away. Should I be concerned?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    But, KONSENSUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It's all SETTLED you (insert gratuitous reference to KOCH and/or "Big Oil" funding here) DENIERS!!!!!!!!!!

  • rts||

    Hey man, ocean acidification is where it's at now, daddy-o.

    In a major new international report, experts conclude that the acidity of the world's ocean may increase by around 170% by the end of the century bringing significant economic losses. People who rely on the ocean's ecosystem services – often in developing countries - are especially vulnerable.
  • playa manhattan||

    It's always something with these guys.

  • R C Dean||

    Remember, folks:

    "may = may or may not"

    So, "experts conclude that the acidity of the world's ocean may or may not increase by around 170% by the end of the century"

    I'm so skeered.

  • ||

    They also don't say what 170% means relative to where it is now? 170% of 1 insignificant amount is 1.7 of that insignificant amount. Woopdeefuckindo.

  • Raston Bot||

    Well if I can get my ceviche from the sea already denatured, then what's the downside?

  • Floridian||

    Mmmm...ceviche. Drool.

  • playa manhattan||

    +1. It's like my seaweed salad will already be dressed.

  • Raston Bot||

    Obviously not many gourmands amongst the climate catastrophists.

  • R C Dean||

    Given their fondness for poshy international conferences, I suspect you're wrong about that, Raston.

  • Raston Bot||

    so are you saying ceviche is not good eats? or that they have no idea what they are eating?

  • Zeb||

    Or perhaps that that was a joke.

  • Killazontherun||

    The two researchers apply some fancy statistical jiggering to climate temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom in an effort to figure out what is going on in the regions of the globe not well-covered by that dataset.

    This reminds me of the caprice under the Clinton administration when they wanted to replace a head count census with data modeling where if you have a city block with four buildings, and one is a condemned building, you extrapolate its population by averaging the other three so long as the buildings were in a safe Democratic district which such buildings tend to be.

    The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

    There we go. Treat the cyclical portion of natural phenomenon that doesn't support our theory as an aberration, and the portion that does as normative.

  • R C Dean||

    Say, would that Hadley data be the dataset that they cooked before destroying the original data?

    Because if so, you can jigger junk data all you want, but its not going to give anything of value.

  • Killazontherun||

    Yeah, the reporting in the Guardian kind of obfuscates this by claiming:

    Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.

    But if the scientist are apply[ing] some fancy statistical jiggering to climate temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom in an effort to figure out what is going on in the regions of the globe not well-covered by that dataset, then wtf?!?!, a viable new product is not possible for the reason you give.

    Is it such a blatant case of them believing enough time has passed between now and the 2009 scandal to use invalidated material to prop up their claim? That's just sleazy.

  • Paul.||

    Is it such a blatant case of them believing enough time has passed between now and the 2009 scandal to use invalidated material to prop up their claim? That's just sleazy.

    No, it's called clever politics.

  • Sevo||

    [sarc]"Curious."[/sarc]

  • Raston Bot||

    In other words, there is no 15-year pause in global warming as all of the current datasets measuring global average temperature have reported.

    Did the Guardian reporter actually write that? Thanks!

  • sarcasmic||

    They're saying that warming is not a sloped curve. It's more like a staircase. Currently we're on a step and moving forward. When the pause ends all the pent up warming will kick in at once, and we'll be dealing with a sudden and catastrophic jump in global temperatures. We must prepare for this by giving total control over our lives to the government. They will take care of us if we obey.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe it's a stepped pyramid

  • MSimon||

    It is certain that they stepped into something.

  • Redmanfms||

    And the down steps will really mean that all the hearts ripped out and offered to the Skygods saved us all from disaster....

  • OldMexican||

    The two researchers apply some fancy statistical jiggering to climate temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom in an effort to figure out what is going on in the regions of the globe not well-covered by that dataset.


    This is how it works: Imagine a ball of silly putty; you place it on the face in the funny papers, then you stretch it and say "Look, it looks like Clark Gable!"

    Same shit.

  • R C Dean||

    "Dammit, all the data indicates we were wrong!"

    "Hmm. Well we could look at where the data is thin, and "fill in the gaps" with data that supports us."

    "Genius! Nobel Prize stuff there, Nigel! Let's get right on it!"

  • Paul.||

    Interestingly, the study by Cowtan and Way suggesting that man-made global warming is continuing apace seems to be getting much more media attention than are the two suggesting explanations for why warming has paused and why it might not increase disastrously in the future. Curious.

    Mmmnah, not that interesting or surprising.

  • The Last American Hero||

    It's pretty amazing how the so-called skeptic community loses their shit over AGW. There are so many areas where they preach careful analysis, double blind studies, peer review, open and honest discussion about the limits and implications of scientific discoveries. Then they get to AGW and they treat it like a fundamentalist Muslim treats the Koran.

  • Sevo||

    The Last American Hero|11.15.13 @ 1:45PM|#
    "It's pretty amazing how the so-called skeptic community loses their shit over AGW"

    I dropped my scrip to SI after one particularly obnoxious rant by Paul K re: how 'evil korporashuns were taking over publishing!'
    This after SI went from a goddam mimeographed newsletter to a slick 8-1/2X11.

  • mad_hominist||

    I still think Snowden was Mr. FOIA.

  • 0x90||

    For those of you who don't habla Español, El Niño is Spanish for "The Niño!"

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, smart guy? Then what does "La Nina" mean?

  • 0x90||

  • MSimon||

    I like soy. You know. Frozen "custard".

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Interestingly, the study by Cowtan and Way suggesting that man-made global warming is continuing apace seems to be getting much more media attention than are the two suggesting explanations for why warming has paused and why it might not increase disastrously in the future. Curious.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Here's an idea: maybe the politically-infected "scientists" are LYING.

  • geezer117||

    In other words, the Earth is still heating, but the heat is collecting in the deep ocean and in places where there are no HCN weather stations to detect it. Clearly, no one suspected that heat was such an intelligent and shy entity.

  • toby52||

    These are not the only papers on this topic.

    There are papers that ascribe the current so-called "pause" (really a slowdown in surface warming) to volcanic dust, to anthropogenic aerosols, to heat takeup in the deep oceans and to a run of cool La Ninas in the Pacific.

    On these three papers, Spencer & Braswell have been here before with the same model and a different answer. That paper even netted Spencer an interview on Fox News. Now he is back with a new solution. Sorry, Roy, but your model is too simple to cut the mustard.

    Judith Currie basically does a curve fitting exercise with no physics.

    Cowtan and Way's is the paper that really excites in the way it provides a complete answer. It will be received not without discomfort as physicists who have advanced other theories will have to re-do their work. On the other hand, climate scientists now understand the ocean-atmospheric interaction a lot better.

    The place to be if you want to discover what scientists really think is next month at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco - the largest meeting of climate scientists in the world.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement