as the Key Moment, when
The current slowdown period began in about 1998...
It has been hypothesized that such a period began in about 1998...
No, I've no idea who Yakushima is.
* Far too many to give, but Gavin's RC post is good.
* Hmmm, entering a cooling phase? - ATTP.
* No! Ah! Part II. The return of the uncertainty monster - VV
* The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom Peterson - see also the comments.
ah darn - but I really loved The Team's whimsical explanations of the mechanisms for The Pause :-(
. . . I will dearly miss them!
[There were always more mechanisms than pauses to explain -W]
I think the slowdown started around 1950, if we believe in Karl15. Good thing Wikipedia is becoming fair and balanced finally on that.
Silly. One paper comes out which "corrects" a multitude of previous work, and because it fits your agenda you anoint it as "good". No pretenses at scientific validation here! Understandable in this instance, though, as Karl+2015 calibrates the ocean buoy network using ship buckets as the reference -- laughable, that. Enjoy your little joke paper while it lasts.
I believe our host will enjoy this post on HotWhopper, with Tom Peterson exposing Anthony Watts:
NZ Willy is one of many in the septicsphere who don't (want to?) understand that it does not matter whether you subtract 0.12 from one dataset, or add 0.12 to the other. The trend remains the same.
[I rather liked This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today. I'm hoping WUWT will fire itself up into a true carpet-biting frenzy; so far, its all been a bit pale -W]
"One paper comes out which “corrects” a multitude of previous work"
It's not the only paper that's come out questioning it. I think researchers are waking up to the reality that they've been conned by journalists and think-tanks into giving too much credibility to a statistically insignificant phenomenon.
[I'm not sure about the "conned" bit. Don't forget the mass of those who never bought it. Writing a paper saying "a pause is not happening" is not easy; its much easier to write something sexy for Nature about some fascinating mechanism that might be happening -W]
[Argh: this got stuck in the moderation queue, including my reply. Sorry -W]
Now, now, Willie: mustn't fuss because your toy's been take away.
How does this paper change anything in denier land? All the climate research was already based on faked data by fake scientists publishing in fake journals, right? This has just made the conspiracy bigger! Isn't that lovely?
Now, don't you feel better? How about a nice cup of tea?
You are correct W! Always good to be able to choose from wherever and whatever you need to tell either story!
My favorite (besides the highly un-parsimonious atmospheric 'heat dump' into the oceans) was invoking all of the tiny volcanoes which if were real actually had no discernible effect on Stratospheric Aerosols!
and yes - treating things as a hypothesis rather than a near certainty is excellent advice. But I think this principle needs to be applied broadly throughout the entire spectrum of available data currently - lest you as well become vulnerable to ending up in the future's waste-bin. And I'd hate to see that happen, as I've said before, because I do like you W!
A special gift for NZ Willy:
Laughable, those protests of what Karl et al did with the buoy data. When someone does the actual work, number crunching and all that...it turns out not to matter (which is no surprise). The fact that so many supposed experts on the septic side don't get this is a testament to their incompetence. Or perhaps we should say it is a testament to their disinterest in getting their criticism right. As long as it sounds plausible to their target audience and creates doubt.
Lars dearest, vocanoes, have to be explosive to push sulfates into the lower stratosphere. Piddling little ones can't do it, and even big ones like Mt. St. Helen that go off sideways don't either, all they do is increase tropospheric loading
Dearest wabbit, you are correct but what mechanism was Mann invoking then? I suppose in fairness I should ask him . . . but the way he scolds Robert Way lately at Real Climate makes me think twice
The "pause" in GISTemp was going to disappear in the very near future anyway since according to SS, its trend since October 1998 to last April was 0.110±0.111℃ with every month since November above that trend mean.
Just a few more days and the pseudo-pause will probably be officially dead (according to the old version of GISTemp anyway).
To avoid falling down before it can travel the globe, what goes up must be
1. Small as moke partices, and
2. Blasted past the tropopause, so as to evade entanglement with particle-gobbling & precipitation-prone clouds .
All hail Yakushima!
For no particular reason, I looked him up, and he appears to be Some Guy with no exaggerated interest in AGW.
The transition will be complete when the article's first sentence goes from "is a period of relatively little change" to "was hypothesized as a period of relatively little change".
Is will switch to was when we have the 2016 temps.
This is such good news! I was getting worried about the effort being spent to explain the odd absence of surface warming. as it turned out, it was lousy buoy data...
Which brings to mind, why not budget money to build better buoys? Or maybe build three different types of buoy? I know this may sound a bit Cretaceous to you all, but I spent a summer taking temperature data and tracking buoys aboard a NOAA vessel before most of you were born. The technology we used was very primitive, but I think I can design a system with a very large spar shape buoy, a hanging tethered temperature, resistivity and pressure array down to 700 meters, a small drogue set below the thermocline, and a simple data storage device, gps, and telecommunications device. I think it's cheaper than an Argo and may even be useable within an ice field (this allows taking temperature data under the ice).
[You need to read the papers more carefully. The buoy data is good; its just that the buoys read a different temperature to a co-located ship. This should not be surprising -W]
"Isn’t it a shame all those Argo buoys had the wrong temperature? I think we need better buoys. I sketched an alternate model and left a description in one of those blogs the big shots at NOAA seem to read."
[Oh dear; and no-one there has realised how wrong it is. Still, you don't get a high class of commentator there -W]
Is it wrong? I think there's a need for alternate buoy designs. One reason why you fail to get traction is the hoitty toity attitude coupled to the frequent use of pay walled papers after doing the work using tax dollars.
[Yes, you're wrong. There is nothing wrong with the buoys. Their thermometers do not need improving. All that has happened is that they measure the water temperature at a slightly different depth to the ships; and so see a slight offset to the temperature -W]
"some fascinating mechanism that might be happening"
That much still seems quite real as regards the Pacific. It's just that its effect on GMST didn't rise to being described as a hiatus.
We do seem to be seeing rather a lot of interesting circulation changes just now.
One reason why you fail to get traction is the hoitty toity attitude coupled to the frequent use of pay walled papers after doing the work using tax dollars.
"Hoitty toity" attitude 8^D? Since nothing will ever get traction with Fernando, that's alright then.
"the frequent use of pay walled papers after doing the work using tax dollars."
But it costs more taxpayers dollars to be open access (in the region of $1500-$3000 per paper* PLOSOne is at the cheaper end** which is why it's filled with more dross every year). There are many ways around the paywall - from emailing the author to signing up for ResearchGate (I once received a postcard from Craig Loehle asking for a reprint) - it's easy if you try...
The current publishing system is broken. Taxpayers are entitled to the work product. The solution is easy, include the extra dollars for papers. And reduce the number, while increasing quality.
Work done by government employees should be documented and published in the institutions website. Asking people to write the author as if we were beggars is pretty far out. I don't think you get the point, if we finance the work as taxpayers we are entitled to it. Otherwise see if you get privately financed, and list the sources.
To tell you the truth, if you weren't advocating tax changes and other strategic decisions based on work we can't see then the subject wouldn't be so critical.
Once you start talking money and politics things change. And it's time to get credibility. Thus far I don't see much reason to trust much. But I've been inoculated by watching governments lie for over half a century.
[Pfft. The US govt just insists that its employees aren't allowed to give away copyright; and since they're powerful, journals just accept it. Other govts could do the same, if they cared -W]
While I'm at it, let we quote Queen Panic
There is no doubt that most of the fossil fuel reserves we have world-wide will have to stay in the ground"….."Two-thirds of the fossil fuels we have will have to stay in the ground.2"
Then suggest you use a search engine and look up
"Burn baby burn (CO2 Atmospheric Concentration from Fossil Fuels)"
That may give you an insight about what may be going on
Fernando, if we take your argument literally, in essence only Americans are allowed to read for free papers from American scientists, Brits from British scientists, etc. etc. After all, "the taxpayer" does not include those from abroad. Which then gets pretty complex if a paper includes authors from several countries...
Try using potential energy resources instead of proven energy reserves (BGR website):
As to getting a hold of pay-walled peer-reviewed (almost all climate science related) publications, I'm batting 100%, and I've only asked for a few hundred to date.
Somehow, don't ask me how, not asking for a publication, might, just might, leave you in the dark, so to speak. That is, if your aim is too really try to understand something written by someone else, if you know what I mean.
Never mind the pause, whatever happened to McLean, DeFreitas & Carter's "cooling after 2010"?
McLean's "coldest year since 1956" in 2011?
David Archibald's "steep cooling during Solar Cycle 24"?
Where are all these coolings? Where are all these people's models that predicted them? Have they apologised for being stupendously wrong, yet?