Talk:Global warming hiatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Global warming pause)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

Some background re current thinking[edit]

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

citation needed: misleading narrative, as in the Reuters headline[edit]

The Mother Jones mentions "piling on", but does not support that this statement:

"There was a surge in media interest setting a misleading narrative, as in the Reuters headline "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"

Mother Jones does not say that the Reuters headline was misleading, and frankly it isn't. Even 2016 publications such as Fyfe, Meehl, et al, still refer to the slowdown, and several publications in the last couple years present hypotheses to explain or dispute the hiatus. Poodleboy (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As Mooney says, it's a misleading narrative: "At the time, many critics pointed out that these assertions were scientifically misleading", and he quotes Dennis Hartmann of the University of Washington, "the trend over a 15-year record is not really very meaningful, because of the natural interannual variability of the climate system". Which is pretty much what Fyfe et al. say, Against that, you're putting your own interpretation, which is original research at best. . dave souza, talk 03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually Fyfe, et al, point out: "The recent decadal slowdown, on the other hand, is unique in having occurred during a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system. This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing than previously thought, or are negative forcings playing a larger role than expected? Or is the recent slowdown a natural decadal modulation of the long-term GMST trend? If the latter is the case, we might expect a 'surge' back to the forced trend when internal variability flips phase."Poodleboy (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed this small scale fluctuation raises interesting questions, which Fjfe et al. are right to highlight. At the same time, as they state at the outset, "A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5)1 — indicates that the so-called surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing (volcanic and solar) superimposed on human- caused warming2. Given the intense political and public scrutiny that global climate change now receives, it has been imperative for scientists to provide a timely explanation of the warming slowdown, and to place it in the context of ongoing anthropogenic warming. Despite recently voiced concerns, we believe this has largely been accomplished." The "struggle to explain" was part of the misleading "pause" narrative, which you seem to be reiterating. . .dave souza, talk 10:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Except that the headline uses the "slowdown" narrative, which isn't misleading, and Chris Mooney doesn't say that it is, just that the major news service was part of "piling on". It is not clear what the actual quote is, a headline or something from an article. The Mooney article isn't sourced. Poodleboy (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There's the point that by the time of that headline there were multiple explanations of the "slowdown", so hardly a "struggle to explain", more a question of the normal debates in science over a short term phenomenon subject to considerable measured variability. As cited in AR5. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it was still a struggle, even in late 2014 there is a search for the "missing heat", and even a question as to whether it has been found today. Key hypotheses were published in 2015. Finding the truth is always a struggle.Poodleboy (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Since "Finding the truth is always a struggle", why should it be headline news? See dogwhistle and man bites dog. . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't the news, the news was where the struggle was, i.e., about the slowdown, a phenomenon that drew considerable interest, and that helped advance the science and will improve the models in the future. When I search google scholar on climate change and struggle, nearlly all the references are about the climate models struggling to reproduce this or that. Is it the models struggling or is it the modelers, the model scientists? Our social intelligence does tend to anthropomorphize. Poodleboy (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Your original research is irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
What makes your original research so relevant? Poodleboy (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

no, not with that data set -- WMC[edit]

Fyfe, et al. used that data set and the parts relevant to the hiatus haven't changed, so the studies of all those authors are still valid. The trend during the hiatus still is still not significantly different from zero. It is just not statistically different from the long term trend either. Perhaps you didn't notice: "We obtain 1972 as the end year of the big hiatus (the period of near-zero trend in the mid-twentieth century) by constructing an optimal piece-wise bilinear fit to the NOAA-Karl data over the period 1950 to 2001." [1] Poodleboy (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: edits as if he was unaware of Fyfe (Feb. 2016) perhaps because some how it hasn't officially been cited in the article. It has a rather distinguished set of consensus authors, many who have been lead authors for the IPCC Working Group I, John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart. The title is "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown"[2]. He has restored the claim about the NOAA-Karl data that they reject, and done so inappropriately in a figure, as if it were fact somehow obvious from the data and not mere opinion supported by the Karl argument that these authors and Trenberth [3] reject. The sentence should be removed from the figure, and if it is to be discussed and disputed, it should be in the article proper. Poodleboy (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I added the Fyfe et al. citation that you suggested (thank you). It is similar to the Dai et al. citation that I added yesterday (and on which Fyfe is a co-author). I hope that helps. Note that Fyfe et al. don't reject the data, which they refer to it as of "high scientific value". instead Fyfe et al. seek an interpretation of the hiatus. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, thanx, but this statement you restored to the figure Temperature anomalies in the updated NOAA dataset show no evidence of a slowdown in the rate of warming post 1998 is not quite right, is it? Fyfe, et al, had no problem finding the slowdown, using the NOAA-Karl data depicted. Poodleboy (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Is that a caption taken from the source of the figure? To avoid OR and our own subjective analysis, I suggest paraphrasing the caption of the source of the figure. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The figure is 2b in the Karl paper. The caption in this article is not the fig 2 caption, but the argument that the recent hiatus is within the 90% confidence range of the long term trend and thus not statistically significant is from that same Karl paper. Of course there are papers which use the more classical 95% confidence range like the IPCC AR5 did, and find that a trend of zero can not be ruled out. It is strange to associate the hiatus conclusion with a figure depicting the NOAA-Karl date that doesn't even depict the trends. That doesn't seem the place to start bringing in other result and figures that actually show the trends.Poodleboy (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to fix up the caption. I think it is possible you've been misinterpreting what Karl et al. say. They find a slower upward trend in T since 1880 than was previous estimated. This slower trend is in line with the recent trend since 1998. This means, among other things, that there has been "no hiatus" or slow down in the recent trend. I hope that helps. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You correctly summarize the Karl, et al, argument, but the figure is a strange place to be doing it, because other more prominent authors still see a hiatus in more recent publications based upon this same data, so it is not just a matter of eyeballing it. If this article is to be just a summary of a primary source, the Karl paper, doesn't WP:SECONDARY require us to defer to the reliable, published secondary source, Frye (2016) to interpret this data? "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Poodleboy (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I would describe the Karl et al., the Fyfe et al., and the Dai et al. articles as primary (though Nature and Science articles have a special status, since those journals are widely read by the broader scientific community). The Trenberth commentary (which you suggested), however, is what I would call secondary. Anyway, I don't see a major problem, here, at least not compared to other Wikiarticles. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fyfe would be primary for Fyfe, but secondary for the Karl data. Let's not dip to the general wiki standard.Poodleboy (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added citations to sources that interested you. Of course, you are welcome to add more. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead[edit]

The following sentence in the third paragraph of the lead is confusing.

"The slowdown had now ended, and there had been record temperatures in 2014 and 2015.[18] "

While the warming trend might have been updated a bit, the year 2015 was warmer than previous years. This is shown in one of the figures in the lead. More generally, I find sentences in this section, using "had been" rather than "has been" confusing (though I know that other editors might disagree with this). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The content is mostly OK but the writing style is a mess -- in other words, this is a typical Wikipedia article. Whatever you can do to clarify is fine. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I took this sentence out, moved citation to SciAm up within paragraph. Note that 2015 is discussed in last paragraph of lead, so we don't this sentence anyway. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the article shouldn't even exist, because there never actually was a hiatus. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)