Watch Now: Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball lecture on global warming
…It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
“If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: …
New paper finds excuse #66 for the ‘pause’: There’s no pause if you look at only at the warmest & coldest day of the year – Published in Environmental Research Letters
New paper finds excuse #66 for the “pause”: There’s no pause if you look at only at the warmest & coldest day of the year
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-excuse-66-for-pause.html
A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters finds excuse #66 for the 18+ year “pause” of global warming: There’s no “pause” if you look at only the one single warmest and coldest days per year. According to the authors and the accompanying editorial, if you use a dataset of extreme temperatures “which is not publicly available” and has data from “areas that don’t have many observations” (with extrapolated (modeled) temperatures) and pick out the one single day per year with the highest and lowest temperatures, those sparse one day per year observations are within one standard deviation of the climate model warming predictions. [Except the “coherent cooling pattern across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes that has emerged in the recent 15 years and is not reproduced by the models”] All’s good with the climate models since the single warmest and coldest days of the year are within 1 standard deviation of model predictions, except that inconvenient cooling trend in the NH mid-latitudes shown by the blue arrow. All’s good with the climate models since the single warmest and coldest days of the year are within 1 standard deviation of model predictions, except that inconvenient cooling trend in SE Asia shown by the blue arrow. Of course, if you instead look at observations from the other 364 days per year, the climate models are overheated by a factor of 3-4 times and falsified at confidence levels exceeding 98%+, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from grabbing at straws and believing in the “faux pause,” or that this paper allegedly “results in increased confidence in projections of future changes in extreme temperature.” A temporary hiatus in warming of extreme temperatures is not unusual, nor inconsistent with model simulations of human-induced climate change Michael Wehner examines trends in extreme temperatures during the warming hiatus. Sillman et al. (2014) find that observed trends of extremely hot days and cold nights are consistent with the current generation of climate models. Short periods of localized decreases in these extreme temperatures are not unusual and the Sillman et al. results increase confidence in projections of future changes in extreme temperature. Recent short periods of reduced rates of the increase or even a decrease in observed global average surface air temperatures have been …
Nature article: $250 million should be spent on climate models able to skillfully simulate clouds & convection
Nature article: $250 million should be spent on climate models able to skillfully simulate clouds & convection
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/nature-article-250-million-should-be.html
An article published today in Nature notes multiple and substantial uncertainties and deficiencies of climate models which are “crucial for predicting global warming,” due primarily to the low-resolution of today’s models which is insufficient to skillfully simulate essential climate aspects such as clouds, ocean eddies, convection, water cycle, thunderstorms, “crucial components of the oceans” such as “the Gulf Stream, and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current” [and ocean oscillations] etc As the article mentions, typical climate models use a low resolution of 100 km, but much higher resolutions of 1 km or higher are required to skillfully model convection and clouds, far beyond the capability of current supercomputers. The author recommends a quarter billion dollars be spent to create international supercomputing centers for climate models, before the world spends trillions on mitigation based on the Precautionary Principle that may or may not be necessary. As climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has pointed out, and contrary to popular belief, climate models are not based on “basic physics,” rather are almost entirely comprised of parameterizations/fudge factors for most critical aspects of climate including convection and clouds. As the article below notes, “simulations of climate change are very sensitive to some of the parameters [fudge factors] associated with these approximate representations of convective cloud systems” However, even if supercomputers are developed over the next decade capable of handling such high resolution, substantial doubt remains of the benefits for climate prediction due to the inherent limitations of chaos theory, multiple flawed assumptions in the model code, and inadequate observations to initialize such numeric models. These are some of the reasons why two recent papers instead call for a new stochastic approach to climate modeling. Climate forecasting: Build high-resolution global climate models Tim Palmer 19 November 2014 International supercomputing centres dedicated to climate prediction are needed to reduce uncertainties in global warming, says Tim Palmer. Local effects such as thunderstorms, crucial for predicting global warming, could be simulated by fine-scale global climate models. Excerpts: The drive to decarbonize the global economy is usually justified by appealing to the precautionary principle: reducing emissions is warranted because the risk of doing nothing is unacceptably high. By emphasizing the idea of risk, this framing recognizes uncertainty in the magnitude and timing of global warming. This uncertainty is substantial. If warming occurs …
What It’s Like to Be Trapped by a Wall of Snow in Buffalo Storm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trapped-wall-snow-buffalo-storm/story?id=27026013…