Submitted via IRC for Bytram
'Pause' in global warming was never real, new research proves
Claims of a 'pause' in observed global temperature warming are comprehensively disproved in a pair of new studies published today.
An international team of climate researchers reviewed existing data and studies and reanalysed them. They concluded there has never been a statistically significant 'pause' in global warming. This conclusion holds whether considering the `pause' as a change in the rate of warming in observations or as a mismatch in rate between observations and expectations from climate models.
[...] Dr. Risbey said: "Our findings show there is little or no statistical evidence for a 'pause' in GMST rise. Neither the current data nor the historical data support it. Moreover, updates to the GMST data through the period of 'pause' research have made this conclusion stronger. But, there was never enough evidence to reasonably draw any other conclusion.
"Global warming did not pause, but we need to understand how and why scientists came to believe it had, to avoid future episodes like this. The climate-research community's acceptance of a 'pause' in global warming caused confusion for the public and policy system about the pace and urgency of climate change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @02:30AM (4 children)
No, they didnt. That's ok though, the Hansen 1988 scenario B/C scenario is still pretty good: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm [skepticalscience.com]
This type of article that tries to pass of post-hoc justifications with predictions is anti-scientific though. If climate researchers were properly vetting each other they would be run out of town.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @02:32AM
*"pass off post-hoc justifications as"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:09AM (2 children)
From your link:
Note that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions is still increasing which is a more aggressive warming scenario than scenario B, but the measured warming is less than scenario B even by GISS measurements. A lot of models, including some that have a far less alarming long term prognosis would fit "pretty good".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:38AM (1 child)
Yep, just fitting the trend in 1988 would fit "pretty good" (actually better than any of those Hansen 1988 projections). "Pretty good" means ok, but not a big deal. You need to predict something surprising to get (intelligent) people to care. It is simple Baye's rule.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:42AM
*Bayes' rule
I mean you need to sum up the performance of all possible explanations in the denominator. The model in question (found in both the numerator and denominator) is only interesting if it dominates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem [wikipedia.org]