Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday December 20 2018, @02:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the keep-on-heating dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @02:30AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @02:30AM (#776638)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @02:32AM (#776640)

    *"pass off post-hoc justifications as"

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:09AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:09AM (#776648) Journal

    the Hansen 1988 scenario B/C scenario is still pretty good

    From your link:

    Each represented different levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Scenario A assumed greenhouse gas emissions would continue to accelerate. Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth. Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:38AM (#776656)

      A lot of models, including some that have a far less alarming long term prognosis would fit "pretty good".

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:42AM (#776659)

        *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]