Talk:Global warming hiatus

Some background re current thinking

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/04/08/waving-good-bye-to-the-stadium-wave-model-about-that-global-warming-hiatus/

Issues

Andrea Saltelli, Pawel Stano, Philip B. Stark, and William Becker. "Climate Models as Economic Guides: Scientific Challenge or Quixotic Quest?" Issues in Science and Technology 31, no. 3 (Spring 2015) sounds interesting. Authors are with the Joint Research Centre’s Unit of Econometrics and Applied Statistics of the European Commission. Philip B. Stark is professor and chair, Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley. Serten Talk 19:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I skimmed it but it didn't seem to have any relevance to the so-called hiatus. Can you quote any specific points? . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Karl et al.: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.abstract

Oh, and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds --Nigelj (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"A whole cottage industry has been built by climate skeptics on the false premise that there is currently a hiatus in global warming," said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London. "This important reanalysis suggests there never was a global warming hiatus; if anything, temperatures are warming faster in the last 15 years than in the last 65 years." (http://phys.org/news/2015-06-global.html) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nurture: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New information casts doubt on hiatus.

This is a new study. So I wouldn't say the hiatus is discredited at this point(although the name is misleading). If this study holds up to scrutiny over time this page may need to be completely overhauled. In the meantime this information needs to be mentioned.

Article on NOAA website Study published in Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErictheJacobson (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A place to start: treat it as a hypothesis. [1]. I'm not sure a "complete overhaul" will be necessary, since the article's definitions relate more tob periodic "pauses", and much of the controversy will remain as currently documented. Yakushima (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Judith Curry casts doubt on Karl et al.: Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?.

"My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies [are] substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. ... "

Given her (and other) criticisms, and the newness of this paper, might be best to back this one out. Or at least put in some qualifiers. Too new to tell if it will be a significant study. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Curry can "cast" as much doubt as she wants. Her blog rambling has zero weight. — TPX 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Quoted in NYT article,

"The change prompted accusations on Thursday from some climate-change denialists that the agency was trying to wave a magic wand and make inconvenient data go away. Mainstream climate scientists not involved in the NOAA research rejected that charge, saying it was essential that agencies like NOAA try to deal with known problems in their data records.

"At the same time, senior climate scientists at other agencies were in no hurry to embrace NOAA’s specific adjustments. Several of them said it would take months of discussion in the scientific community to understand the data corrections and come to a consensus about whether to adopt them broadly."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Update the graphs for 2015?

The graph attributed to GISS annual data does not look current. Since they depend directly on the NASA data why not use the maintained graphics from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ If the article needs its own graph, perhaps it should be updated to include recent data?

In R it might be something like:

library(ggplot2); library(reshape2) ; library(scales)

giss<-read.table(
'http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt',
  skip=4,nrows=2015-1880+1,na.strings='*',col.names=c('Year','Annual','Avg_5y'))

p <- ggplot(melt(giss,id='Year',value.name='C'),
       aes(x=Year,y=C,colour=variable))+
       geom_line()+
       theme(legend.justification=c(0,1), legend.position=c(0,1))+
       ggtitle("Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)\n (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)") +
       scale_colour_discrete(name="Time Series of annual anomalies",
         breaks=c("Annual","Avg_5y"),labels=c("Annual Mean","5-year_Mean"))+
       scale_x_continuous(breaks=pretty_breaks(n=20))
  ggsave("GISS_Global_Land_Ocean_Index_201505.svg",plot=p,width=10, height=8)

... which gives the graph below. Drf5n (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I help maintain a multilingual SVG graph of the GISS 'Fig A2' dataset at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg, which is widely used across Wikipedia. I never understood why this article had to have its own graph. It seems a bad way to ensure that the data is always out of date, and allows for errors to be introduced without so many eyes on the job to notice. I'd be much happier with that graph in this article as elsewhere where the data needs understanding. --Nigelj (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have [boldly] made the change. --Nigelj (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool. My R+ggplot graph was kinda fun, but referring to a graph with a good maintenance plan is a better solution. Drf5n (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

These findings have drawn criticisms from both sides of the climate debate

I took that out. The LA Times does indeed say it, but its not a reasonable thing to say: presented here, its false balance; there, its just lazy journalism. Also, if we're going to quote people on what this study is about, the balance-of-quotes needs to reflect the balance-of-scientific response; which means quoting only Curry is, like, way out maan William M. Connolley (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the NY Times made much the same point, as N&EG pointed out in the discussion about this paper, @ "New information casts doubt on hiatus", above. Why didn't you post this comment there?

Perhaps we should combine the two news articles. We can't just ignore significant RS press commentary, especially on a brand-new primary-source paper. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean that it says that senior climate scientists said it would take months of discussion for the scientific community to come to a consensus about whether to adopt the new data broadly?[2] That's not a criticism of the research, that's a description of how scientific consensus works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 June 2015‎

For once, the Graun seems to have got it righter: "Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK’s Met Office, said Noaa’s research was “robust” and mirrored an analysis the British team is conducting on its own surface temperature record. 'Their work is consistent with independent work that we’ve done. It’s within our uncertainties. Part of the robustness and reliability of these records is that there are different groups around the world doing this work,' he said. But Stott argued that the term slowdown remained valid because the past 15 years might have been still hotter were it not for natural variations." Moere from others, including NASA. The LAT looked a bit rubbish, seems to have failed to read AR5 and just got a mangled version from somewhere. . dave souza, talk 23:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since is "new" research accepted as gospel? The is one study, which rightly has been criticized, plus it doesn't vibe with the other measurments. I am going to return the criticism for balance. Arzel (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)