No substantive evidence for 'pause' in global warming, study finds

November 24, 2015
Global warming
Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2014, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. Credit: NASA GISS.

There is no substantive evidence for a 'pause' or 'hiatus' in global warming and the use of those terms is therefore inaccurate, new research from the University of Bristol, UK has found.

The researchers, led by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of Bristol's School of Experimental Psychology and the Cabot Institute, examined 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 2009 and 2014 that specifically addressed the presumed 'hiatus' and found no consistent or agreed definition of such a 'hiatus', when it began and how long it lasted.

The researchers then compared the distribution of decadal warming trends during the 'hiatus' - as defined by the same scientific articles - against other trends of equivalent length in the entire record of modern global warming. The analysis showed that all definitions of the 'hiatus' in the literature were found to be unexceptional in the context of other trends.

The researchers also found that, if sample size is small, the 'hiatus' will always appear to be present. For example, anyone making a claim for a 'hiatus' of 12 years or below (a claim made by a third of the articles studied) will find one, not because something new and different is happening, but because small sample sizes provide insufficient statistical power for the detection of trends.

Professor Lewandowsky said: "Our study raises the question: why has so much research been framed around the concept of a 'hiatus' when it does not exist? The notion of a 'pause' or 'hiatus' demonstrably originated outside the scientific community, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct."

Discussing climate change using the terms 'pause' or 'hiatus' creates hazards for the public and the , the study concludes.

Professor Lewandowsky said: "Scientists may argue that when they use the terms 'pause' or 'hiatus' they know - and their colleagues understand - that they do not mean to imply global warming has stopped.

"But while scientists might tacitly understand that global warming continues notwithstanding the alleged 'hiatus', or they may intend the 'pause' to refer to differences between observed temperatures and expectations from theory or models, the public is not privy to that tacit understanding.

"Therefore, scientists should avoid the use of 'pause' or hiatus' when referring to fluctuations of global mean surface temperature around the longer-term warming trend. There is no evidence for a pause in ."

Explore further: How climate science denial affects the scientific community

More information: 'On the definition and identifiability of the alleged "hiatus" in global warming' by Stephan Lewandowsky, James S. Risbey and Naomi Oreskes, Scientific Reports (2015)

Related Stories

How climate science denial affects the scientific community

May 7, 2015

Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty and is also affecting how they themselves speak - and perhaps even think - about their own research, a new ...

Using new data, US finds no pause in global warming

June 4, 2015

Using updated data on the Earth's surface temperatures worldwide, US government scientists have found no evidence of a pause in global warming in recent years, according to research published on Thursday.

Recommended for you

Caves in central China show history of natural flood patterns

January 19, 2017

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that major flooding and large amounts of precipitation occur on 500-year cycles in central China. These findings shed light on the forecasting of future floods and improve ...

73 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2015
Quick, someone tell Lamar Smith of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology for the 113th Congress!
AGreatWhopper
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
Professor Lewandowsky said: "Our study raises the question: why has so much research been framed around the concept of a 'hiatus' when it does not exist? The notion of a 'pause' or 'hiatus' demonstrably originated outside the scientific community, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct."


So, forget about the paid idiot deniers, those of you that argue with them are part of the problem too. What's the path between a crank sitting in his mother's basement and working scientists? You are. When you respond to them in a forum like this, you are taking their mindless drivel and making it a part of the discourse. Feckless liberals. You just never stop shooting yourselves in the foot, do you? I should be more charitable though. Looking at the traffic on here, you obviously can't control yourselves. Pitiful all.
jim_xanara
2 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2015
Zionist with an agenda, that one. http://joannenova...ith-him/
jljenkins
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
He sure nailed you!

Lewandowsky wrote "The Debunking Handbook", a review of research on debunking falsehoods and a guide to better practices for doing so.[ Much of "The Debunking Handbook" focuses on "backfire effects", whereby telling people that they are wrong actually reinforces their prior beliefs, rather than weakening them.
greenonions
5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
AGreatWhopper
you obviously can't control yourselves.


And you dont see the irony in that statement do you?
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
Stephan Lewandowsky 'flees' Australia in wake of investigations

http://wattsupwit...gations/
arnold_townsend
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
Well, I've had enough. Science is never "settled" and when so much about AGW has been shown to be disputable or outright wrong yet you have "scientists" like this shmuck trying to shut down debate ... well, this truly has become religion and politics but not science. This organization does not publish peer-review papers that dispute some of these "studies" and there are many out there. I'd like to remind the editors of this propaganda palace that some well-regarded experts in the field do not agree with the more extreme takes on global warming. To question their integrity because they hold contrary views is myopic at best, absurd and dishonest itself at worst. I've been a visitor to this website for years now and simply ignored the global warming smears against critics but no more. If you're this religious about something so in dispute what else are you pushing as doctrine rather than as science? I can't trust your articles any longer.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2015
40 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 2009 and 2014 that specifically addressed the presumed 'hiatus' and found no consistent or agreed definition of such a 'hiatus', when it began and how long it lasted.

And that's what the AGW Cult boasts is "SETTLED SCIENCE".
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
Revisionist history, it's standard operating procedure for those who write it. When the revisions are questioned those who ask are called "deniers". History as most know it did not happen as is told.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2015
The researchers also found that, if sample size is small, the 'hiatus' will always appear to be present. For example, anyone making a claim for a 'hiatus' of 12 years or below (a claim made by a third of the articles studied) will find one, not because something new and different is happening, but because small sample sizes provide insufficient statistical power for the detection of trends
that ought to piss off a lot of folk that Thermo and furlong demonstrated this to (repeatedly) not too very long ago!

ROTFLMFAO

and see how the crackpots seek out the attention above? like this
Revisionist history,
all because no one will follow his own pseudoscience and conspiracist ideation

hey CD troll; remember this?
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

yall laughed
except now there is validation
http://www.pnas.o...09433112

article on PO too!

Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
When you respond to them in a forum like this, you are taking their mindless drivel and making it a part of the discourse
@whopper
So it is better to allow the pseudoscience free reign on a science site?
where is the logic in that?

.

,

and when so much about AGW has been shown to be disputable or outright wrong
@arnold_townsend
you mean you think there is equivalence between an article on a biased crank site and a study?
because there are NO studies that refute or disprove AGW and our current climate change problems... therefore your claim is called a FALSE CLAIM
http://www.auburn...ion.html

try ignoring the media, who are out for ratings and to stir the stupid up
instead read the SCIENCE and studies... which specifically state the opposite of what you said
GSwift7
4 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2015
CaptainS:

The researchers also found that, if sample size is small, the 'hiatus' will always appear to be present. For example... etc.

that ought to piss off a lot of folk that Thermo and furlong demonstrated this to (repeatedly) not too very long ago!


I agree. It's commonly accepted in climate science that 30 years is a good minimum sample size for a data point that isn't too noisy. Does that make the length of our temperature record a problem as well? How many years of our temperature record do you think are reliable? Even if you think the entire record is reliable and representative of the entire planet, how long has it been since humans started to have a measurable effect? If this were any other field of science, would you have a problem with the size and quality of our data? Notice that I said humans are causing a measurable effect. Just making sure you know I don't hold an extremist point of view. Just scientific method here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
How many years of our temperature record do you think are reliable?
@Gswift
i can't answer this as i am not a climate scientist nor a physicist... i can only say that using a short time period is noisy and can show unreliable results

as for the rest: as i am not doing research in climate, i tend to evaluate information as such:
1- a singular study is a point of interest- far better than opinion or subjective argument, but not validation of a point unless conceding a possibility

2- validated studies hold the evidence that is considered "proof"

3- anyone who wants to challenge the information must also comply with the constraints (scientific method) and can do it, as long as it is published in a reputable peer reviewed journal - crank sites abound, so are not sources of info (includes youtube, etc)

4- science isn't done by consensus, but when the overwhelming amount of individual evidence points to a singular area, then it is pretty sure of the accuracy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
@Gswift cont'd
I don't know if that answers your questions, but i hope it does
as for things like
how long has it been since humans started to have a measurable effect?
we can see effects and have studied the point in various ways
start here: http://oceanservi...uman.pdf

here is a relevant article with references: http://www.skepti...iate.htm

we knew as far back as 1965 that carbon/CO2 was going to be a problem
http://phys.org/n...eam.html

If this were any other field of science, would you have a problem with the size and quality of our data?
not sure what you mean: climate science incorporates physics and more... and it is a very complex system
this is a key point: i'm not saying we have all the answers... but we are far more along than the anti-science deniers claim WRT evidence
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2015
Never mind the 100 year snow in Chicago just now. Never mind the Antarctic is gaining ice. Never mind the Great Lakes are freezing over again. Three winters now.
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2015
Hi Eddy. :)
Never mind the 100 year snow in Chicago just now. Never mind the Antarctic is gaining ice. Never mind the Great Lakes are freezing over again. Three winters now.
All these transitional 'swings' in many factors were predicted by even the most naive early 'models'. Now we have a better grasp of what is happening today all over the globe, and it shows that we are in transition from 'old' prevailing patterns to 'unpredictable' evolving patterns converging towards the longer term patterns which will establish themselves once the dynamics settles into a new heat/temperature flux regime. You're still naive as the early prognoticators; while models/knowledge have moved on; confirming reality now evident to anyone not still 'politicizing' for mercenary/personal advantage.

Hi antigoracle, cantdrive etc. :)

Try not to behave like those you criticize. It doesn't matter who did what wrong 'model' in the past. It's now all too real; we have to deal with it together. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
Never mind the 100 year snow in Chicago just now
@eddy
there is a difference between weather & climate: start here-
http://www.nasa.g...her.html

what you are arguing above: chicago, antarctic, great lakes freezing... that is all weather
NOT climate

also note, the warming climate really CAN cause colder weather (notice i used two separate terms there... see link above for explanation)

in fact, here is how warming climate can affect weather & cause cold snaps
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

a video about the above study
https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

more evidence re: the above
http://iopscience...4005.pdf

so, you have two studies as well as a video which explains the basics by the author of the studies
that's how climate warming can affect weather

that is how science do
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2015
All these transitional 'swings' in many factors were predicted by even the most naive early 'models'. Now we have a better grasp of what is happening today all over the globe, and it shows that we are in transition from 'old' prevailing patterns to 'unpredictable' evolving patterns converging towards the longer term patterns which will establish themselves once the dynamics settles into a new heat/temperature flux regime.

Do/you/even/read/the/hogwash/you/spew?
The naive early models predicted these unpredictable patterns.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
All these transitional 'swings' in many factors were predicted by even the most naive early 'models'. Now we have a better grasp of what is happening today all over the globe, and it shows that we are in transition from 'old' prevailing patterns to 'unpredictable' evolving patterns converging towards the longer term patterns which will establish themselves once the dynamics settles into a new heat/temperature flux regime.

Do/you/even/read/the/hogwash/you/spew?
The naive early models predicted these unpredictable patterns.
Come on now, mate, you just 'read' what you wanted to read. It's the 'swings' that were predicted to be consequence of said transition stage. What the swings would be and where/when could not be predicted to any degree of accuracy, but that such 'swings' WOULD OCCUR during transition WAS predicted. Next time take time to read objectively rather than kneejerk based on what you wanted to 'read'. Good luck to us all. :)
tblakely1357
1 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
The more people ignore the 'experts' on Global Warming the more 'studies' proving GW roll out and the headlines get more and more hysterical. Damn prols, too stupid to listen to their betters.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
The more people ignore the 'experts' on Global Warming the more 'studies' proving GW roll out
actually this is the exact opposite
people ignore the evidence harder now that there is more evidence
there was no real "debate" in the 1980's... but today, with all the evidence supporting it... somehow the politicians and media want to give equal time and attention to the debunked anti-science crowd who don't believe in AGW

Why? because things like this
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

and this
http://journals.p....0075637

http://arstechnic...nformed/

ignoring the evidence won't make it all go away
it only makes people who ignore the evidence look really, really stupid

howhot2
5 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2015
Good call Stumpy.

You know what? I always thought the "Pause" was a great pile of BS when I first heard it proposed by all the damned deniers. Sometimes it's best to go with your educated suspicions even when the crowds say otherwise and call a spade as a spade. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't make the situation any better. There are still deniers and the CO2 issue just gets worst daily, and we still don't have the sense of urgency needed to face the global warming problem. Don't you are agree? @antigoracle (oh and have they moved your trailer house yet?)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
Come on now, mate, you just 'read' what you wanted to read. It's the 'swings' that were predicted to be consequence of said transition stage. What the swings would be and where/when could not be predicted to any degree of accuracy, but that such 'swings' WOULD OCCUR during transition WAS predicted. Next time take time to read objectively rather than kneejerk based on what you wanted to 'read'. Good luck to us all. :)

Again. Do you even read the bollocks you spew?
What transition?
What is swinging?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
greenonions
5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Antigoracle
Again. Do you even read the bollocks you spew?


You certainly don't read your own bollocks. Over on another thread - we are still waiting for your explanation of the current warming trend. 2014 is the hottest year on record, and 2015 just about to bust that one - some pause huh? I wonder who ubavonatuba is now posing as. Had so many arguments down the rabbit hole with that one about how there is no global warming - it is just random. Wonder what the odds of this being random are - http://woodfortre...16/trend
RealityCheck
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
It's the 'swings' that were predicted to be consequence of said transition stage. What the swings would be and where/when could not be predicted to any degree of accuracy, but that such 'swings' WOULD OCCUR during transition WAS predicted. Next time take time to read objectively rather than kneejerk based on what you wanted to 'read'. Good luck to us all. :)
Again. Do you even read the bollocks you spew?
What transition?
What is swinging?
Your own references confirm what swings/transitions. Weather/climate patterns/events which were previously 'prevailing/settled' are being destabilized by additional heat/energy. Any chaotic dynamics physical system (eg, weather/climate system) would produce such transitional variations on its way towards a new settled/equilibrium state involving a new heat/temp flux regime.

Chaotic 'slowdowns/speedups' in warming TREND is STILL WARMING. Read properly and capish it; then you won't be doomed to eternal denial. :)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
Your own references confirm what swings/transitions. Weather/climate patterns/events which were previously 'prevailing/settled' are being destabilized by additional heat/energy. Any chaotic dynamics physical system (eg, weather/climate system) would produce such transitional variations on its way towards a new settled/equilibrium state involving a new heat/temp flux regime.

Chaotic 'slowdowns/speedups' in warming TREND is STILL WARMING. Read properly and capish it; then you won't be doomed to eternal denial. :)

You really enjoy spewing your hogwash, don't you.
Show me which link mentions swing/transition?
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

All the discussion/references is/are perforce of the subject matter about variation of weather patterns, temps and heat flows through the system in transition from pre-anthropogenic warming era and currently evolving warming era. The system is a chaotic one. The transition between old and new patterns hence involves swings in pattern of weather/events which reflect the unseasonality, unpredictability and oscillation out of the norms obtaining previously. If you can't understand that then you miss the nature of the real world climate/weather system processes happening all around you now. Not good. :)
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
Our study raises the question: why has so much research been framed around the concept of a 'hiatus' when it does not exist?
For that matter, why has so much research been framed around the concept of climate change being caused by mankind disrupting nature?

We know that ice ages occur in 26,000 - 27,000 year cycles, in sync with the rate of precession - not a coincidence. If multiple ice ages have occurred over Earth's history, then it follows logically that multiple climate change patterns in the form of global warming have been a phase of those cycles. We are currently in the final stages of the warming trend after the last ice age, and this warming effect increases logarithmically as this trend continues in time. Expect warmer temperatures and rising sea levels as we cross that line when cooling trends take over and we find ourselves in the next ice age.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
As for industry pumping CO2 in the atmosphere causing global warming, prehistoric warming trends could similarly be blamed on the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere from massive forest fires, unimpeded by civilized man controlling and abating those fires, but we know that isn't so. We could say that whatever CO2 would be entering the atmosphere from fire has been substituted with industrial activity, but we shouldn't. Man's influence on climate change is negligible, and the idea that we can alter the course of nature is arrogant. You can't prevent the inevitable. Ice ages, and subsequent global warming post ice ages, are cyclical events tied to the rate of precession, the Earth's wobble around its axis. They are directly influenced by astronomical position and orbital placement of the Earth with respect to the sun.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
So why are we experiencing crazy weather across the North American continent? That is simply the result of ice melt in the Arctic. Cold is no longer confined to the north as it was when the ice was not melting so rapidly, and the meltwater flowing south into warmer waters is responsible for that crazy weather. We may well see no ice during the peak melt season in the Arctic, which is around mid September, in our lifetime.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
I am sorry that our tax dollars are being wasted in research on, and multi-nation conferences about, climate change, as if we could somehow alter the course of natural history, which is absurd. Nothing that we do, and no amount of money that we spend, will alter the course of nature.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Hi baudrunner. :)

What you wrote above sounds well and good UNTIL one consults actual historical/scientific records pre/post AGW era augured in by commencement/accelerating Global Industrial Revolution which caused great DE-forestation from using timber for wood/charcoal fuels for boiler/furnaces. Also, past unimpeded fires you mention occurred regularly, but so did the RE-generation also occur unimpeded by man at those times. So any CO2 from such sources would have been removed by new growth on massive scales. Also, we know that supervolcanism events cause transient cooling/ice ages which eventually reverse once atmospheric particulates/Sulfur etc settles out again. No-one is arguing that these natural components of cooling/warming did/do not exist, only that we NOW have a further component: Anthropogenic Emissions on vast global scales which is not easily reversed by re-forestation/volcanism cooling. Even Freeman Dyson acknowledges AGW due human activity/CO2. Complex. :)
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

All the discussion/references is/are perforce of the subject matter about variation of weather patterns, temps and heat flows through the system in transition from pre-anthropogenic warming era and currently evolving warming era. The system is a chaotic one. The transition between old and new patterns hence involves swings in pattern of weather/events which reflect the unseasonality, unpredictability and oscillation out of the norms obtaining previously. If you can't understand that then you miss the nature of the real world climate/weather system processes happening all around you now. Not good. :)

All this shite just squirts right out off you, doesn't it?
What old/new pattern?
Starting and ending when?
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Not arguing with you, RealityCheck, but IMO the real issue is not man's influence on climate change, which is a natural and cyclical process, but it is the quality of the air that we breathe. Anything we can do to improve the quality of the air that we breathe is a step to perhaps delaying the inevitable somewhat, but I am skeptical about that.

Also, it is rash to say that supervolcanism events cause transient cooling/ice ages which eventually reverse once atmospheric particulates/Sulfur etc settles out again, because that is an assumption. Again, these events are no doubt contributors, but I am saying that they are not the primary cause of climate change. Rather, it is the precessionary cycle which is the primary cause of climate change.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Hi baudrunner. :)

No. Man's GLOBALLY significant activity/emissions since Industrial Revolution is not a 'natural' factor that ever existed previously. The deforestation now means that that 'natural' reversal mechanism is severely compromised. Hence the evolving AGW-exacerbated climate problems 'now' that did not obtain 'back then'.

As for real world historical demonstration of power of super-volcanism to alter the climate regionally/globally via mega-masses of particulate/chemical injection into stratosphere, just wiki "Little Ice Age" and read further and comprehend the associated chemistry/physics/meteorological dynamics/effects/duration.

Another example of man's activity/emissions affecting our atmosphere/weather dynamics: wiki "Ozone Layer", chemicals which cause great HOLES in same over Arctic/antarctic regions which allow MORE Ultra Violet energy through to hit ocean/land surface. Reduced use of such chemicals have helped.

We can affect/solve globally. :)
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

Your denials are beginning to look desperately childish. Was that your intention? :)

If even Freeman Dyson acknowledges AGW era (which made itself obvious in Climate Observations as far back as 100yrs ago...long before you/GOP/Fossil etc propagandists started to politicize the climate science/facts for obvious mercenary/personal/political motives), why pretend you have any legs to stand on at all for your continuing mindless denials/insults.

Give it up, antigoracle; your childish denials/tactics are starting to resemble those which Stumpy is using to deny the reality of his error in trolling me when I was correct all along, as Da Schneib bravely admitted but Stumpy has yet to do so. Are you determined to persist in 'doing a Stumpy' like that? Not good. :)
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
Another study confirms what we've been saying for five years....

Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
Another study confirms what we've been saying for five years....


Actually, more like 12 years. For some, even longer.

There was never scientific agreement that there was a pause of any type. That was a fiction constructed by Rose and Curry using flawed data points and a contrived trend period.
GSwift7
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
to CaptainS:

That was a surprising answer. I wasn't asking about climate science or global warming in general, just the temperature record. You should have enough knowledge about data collection, scientific method in general, and statistics to form an opinion about the historical temperature record. It's just history, so you don't have to be a scientist to read about it.

One particularly interesting part of the history of the temperature record is the history of thermometry. It's amazingly difficult to create an accurate thermometer. The engineering problems that make it difficult are very thought-provoking, whether you're interested in climate change or not. I find it interesting, for example, that Galileo experimented with primitive temperature measurement devices, or that Mr. Fahrenheit got into thermometers because he was a talented glass blower. The differences between different types of thermometers, and the pros and cons are interesting as well.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
GSwift7 said:
One particularly interesting part of the history of the temperature record is the history of thermometry. It's amazingly difficult to create an accurate thermometer.


Good to see you commenting. I haven't seen you active in the climate discussions for a while.

Let me address your comment about the "accuracy" of thermometers. Let me start by saying your are correct. Now let me continue to explain why that is not a real issue and has not been for a century.

First, let me start by mentioning the difference between accuracy and precision. I normally do this with a drawing of a target with holes shot in it. The accuracy is how close you come to the bullseye. The precision is how closely the holes are spaced. You can have high accuracy (every shot hitting the bullseye) with modest precision (the shots grouped over the whole area of the bullseye). Continued

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
Continued for GSwift7: You can also have high precision with poor accuracy (when the holes are all touching but far from the bullseye). You can also have poor precision and poor accuracy (when the holes are all over the target - and a few could be in the bullseye but most not). And you can have both high accuracy and high precision when the holes are all touching in the bullseye).

I was watching a mechanical engineering grad student make a presentation last week and he put up a slide showing his temperature measurements with error bars. He was using type T thermocouples and showed the standard 1C error bar. He was complaining about the lack of accuracy because he had to do an energy balance. He thought he might have to go to a platinum resistance thermometer for higher accuracy.

I asked if he had a dry-well calibrator and he had to ask me what that was.

The reason for the story is that even grad students don't have a good idea about measurements. Cont
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
Cont for GSwift7: Let's take the type T thermocouple as an example. The off-the-shelf accuracy is 1C. What does that mean? It means that a mass produced thermocouple will have joints between the two types of metal that are not perfect. There can be contamination of all types as well as difference in composition of the metal. That means that the standard inexpensive TC wire is expected to vary from batch to batch with respect to accuracy (hitting the real temperature). What that does not mean is that the manufactured TC will not be precise. In fact, the manufactured TC will repeatedly show the same temperature in a calibration well, even though it might not hit the set temperature. For instance, I could put it into either a wet well or dry calibration system and it might read 21 C when the set (and most likely temperature) is 20C. However, the reason for the calibrators is that I can build my own calibration table for a specific TC. Cont
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
Cont for GSwift7: Once I have calibrated a TC, I can expect accuracy on the order of 0.1 C to 0.2 C for that TC until it has changed composition (through corrosion or changes in content due to heating). The TCs are not inherently inaccurate, they are just not individually calibrated.

Let's go back to the use of thermometers prior to 1940. They were also not accurate (typically given as +/- 2.5C, but "scientific" thermometers were very precise. Once they were recalibrated they were both precise and accurate with a calibrated accuracy on the order of 0.1C and high precision. Calibration has always been part of the scientific process.

That is only one portion of the story. If you have a set of readings from a calibrated thermal sensor you can follow it reliably for decades if it is not damaged. Some were properly calibrated and some were not. The story of how those that were not calibrated is interesting. Cont
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
Cont for GSwift7: Back to the story of how they use uncalibrated thermal sensors. Let's assume that a thermal sensor has a accuracy of 1C but a precision of 0.1C. What that means is that if we are looking at changes over time then the same sensor will give us precise but inaccurate measurements that vary over time in lock step with the precision and the accuracy is always off. So, if the temperature of what is being measured is changes by 1C per decade, the CHANGE between the measurements is 1C +/- 0.1 C not 1C +/- 1C even if the absolute measurement is off by 1C.

Couple that with large set-statistics and you improve precision over the temperature field.

Let me know if that is clear or not.
GSwift7
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Hey there Themo, good to see you again as well.

Yeah, I know all that. The larger problem with thermocouples is delamination over time and the drift it can cause. You and I could probably spend several days talking about all the different types of thermometers, the different problems with each type, the history of different types, how it affects the temperature record, and how scientists can work around those things. The problem with that is that you and I both have a deep understanding of all those things. I can almost guarantee that you and I are the only ones reading this thread that know that much about it.

My post above was an attempt to stick to the very most basic level and maybe inspire some people to go learn a little about it. They are trying to talk about a trend in the temperature record, but they don't know enough about the record itself to interpret it. Anyone can see whether the graph goes up and down or not, but to understand what it means you've got to.. cont.
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
understand a ton of little details about the entire process that happens between the gathering of the data and the finished product that you finally see in the end.

The hard truth about the temperature records prior to about 100 years ago is that temperature data older than that wasn't intended for climate science, and the instruments and recordkeeping don't meet modern standards for scientific work. We do the best we can with what we have, but in terms of rigorous scientific methodology, you have to include a lot of caveats about the data and whatever processing you did to it to produce your final product. The common person on the street just doesn't have the technical background to understand any of that. That leads to anti-AGW people thinking the data is garbage, and pro-AGW people don't like to talk about it because you have to spend half a day explaining all the details of why that's not true, and the person they're talking to doesn't understand half of it anyway.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
denials/insults

I called you on your unsubstantiated hogwash and asked you to explain yourself. But, all you do instead, is spew the same shite out the other side of your mouth.
So, one more time -
What old/new pattern?
Starting/ending when?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
The hard truth about the temperature records prior to about 100 years ago is that temperature data older than that .... and the instruments and recordkeeping don't meet modern standards for scientific work......in terms of rigorous scientific methodology, you have to include a lot of caveats about the data and whatever processing you did to it to produce your final product.

What an utter piece of rubbish. The facts speaks for themselves. The more recent the data, the more it has been "corrected" just to support the dogma of AGW. Just have a look at what "processing" was done to eliminate the pause.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
GSwift7. You said:
The common person on the street just doesn't have the technical background to understand any of that. That leads to anti-AGW people thinking the data is garbage, and pro-AGW people don't like to talk about it because you have to spend half a day explaining all the details of why that's not true, and the person they're talking to doesn't understand half of it anyway.


You couldn't have been more right. Just look at Anti the-Gore-lover react. He doesn't understand the technology and spews venom over the thought he might be wrong.

I thought we might have a good discussion for the sake of giving some of the folks reading this the opportunity to dig into thermal sensors. Your assessment was much more "accurate". Let's see who else comments on the issues. You got this one on on-the-nose.
GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
to antigoracle:

What an utter piece of rubbish. ...The more recent the data, the more it has been "corrected"...


I didn't say anything about data more recent than 100 years.

If you'd like to hear my opinion on the data for the past 100 years, and all the processing, etc. I'd be happy to share my opinion.

My opinion on the past 100 years of data is that it's only 100 years of data. 100 years is nothing in terms of climate. It just seems big to you because people don't live very long.

Anyway, no matter what the data looks like, I wouldn't get excited about anything related to climate with a temporal resolution of less than 30 years or a duration of less than half a millennia.

Let me keep it simple though. Conservation saves you money. Saving money is good. Therefore conservation is good for you, no matter how you feel about it?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
If you'd like to hear my opinion on the data for the past 100 years, and all the processing, etc. I'd be happy to share my opinion.

Please share away.
As I previously mentioned, I'm particularly interested in the "processing" done to eliminate the pause and the justification for it.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Nov 26, 2015
@G7 and the @antigoracle and all Phys.org; Happy Thanksgiving, I don't want my comments to wear on you. As Thermo said, It's good to hear from you Gswift. Anyway, I wanted to argue about two thing you said;

My opinion on the past 100 years of data is that it's only 100 years of data. 100 years is nothing in terms of climate. It just seems big to you because people don't live very long.

Anyway, no matter what the data looks like, I wouldn't get excited about anything related to climate with a temporal resolution of less than 30 years or a duration of less than half a millennia.

I disagree with your for statement. In 100 years an hell of a lot can change in climate. And it can be caused by people. Permanent change too, Just step back a moment and look at CO2, Methane, NO levels in the past 100 years, and then look at global average temperatures for the past 100 years? Then look at your 30 year scale. ENVIRONMENTAL change is exponential and commensurate with CO2!
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
What old/new pattern?
When a prevailing pattern is destabilized and produces out-of-season patterns and new extremes/frequencies and duration/extents than previous prevsiling patterns did, then by definition there was an 'old' prevailing pattern which is transitioning to a 'new' future prevailing pattern via chaotic steps in the dyamics/oscillations etc.
Starting/ending when?
It started in Mandalay, on a rainy Thursday afternoon in 1903, in March of that year, at precisely 5 minutes and thirty-two seconds past four. It was witnessed by the local SchoolMarm because she happened to be looking out of the classroom window just at that moment and saw the nearest banana tree leaves curl up from the unusual warming era that started there and then.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, antigoracle, you've computer/Internet. Do your own research re changing climate observations/records from explorers/colonialists/traders/scientists up to 1950's. Then since. You'll see. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2015
You should have enough ... to form an opinion about the historical temperature record
@GSwift
... i see that Thermo is answering, so i will read further before continuing
I wasn't asking about climate science or global warming in general, just the temperature record
well... still not sure what you are wanting from me... as you said
That leads to anti-AGW people thinking the data is garbage, and pro-AGW people don't like to talk about it because you have to spend half a day explaining all the details of why that's not true, and the person they're talking to doesn't understand half of it anyway
perhaps you should get with Thermo and open up a commentary/feedback about the subject to clarify it a little more? considering both your expertise in the subject, you could actually help a lot of people understand
THANKS TO YOU BOTH

(and to be perfectly honest - i am still not sure what you actually want me to give opinion on)

PS- Happy Thanksgiving yall
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2015
. I can almost guarantee that you and I are the only ones reading this thread that know that much about it.


Gswift:
The "almost" is correct.
Studied engineering prior to a career in the UKMO (so worked with both MIG and and ERT's).

Well written Thermo.

jeffensley
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2015
So in essence, a psychologist is telling climate scientists that they don't know how to read data and alarmist commenters are using this as proof that there was never a pause. Please, continue.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2015
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2015
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2015
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause

http://hockeyscht...-26.html

Is it any wonder that they are now making excuses for the excuses. And, after falling for all of the excuses, the ignorant Chicken Littles still remain faithful.
Hey Chicken Littles, tell us which of the 66 was your favourite.
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

Mate, it's gone beyond modeling/opinion/politics stage. Regardless of past/present argy-bargy on who-did-what-to-whom-for-what-agendas, the evolving reality of climate change is now to the point where you/others bickering on personal/trivial issues is looking somewhat silly. As history shows again and again, humans/politicians have an unfortunate propensity for procrastination (for whatever fear/ignorance/mercenary/other foibles/agendas) until it's too late. So far we've been lucky that past procrastination in past crises have not been global disasters to the extent which THIS developing climate disaster is shaping up to be over next century. But TIMELY preventative action needs to be started NOW, not when, as usual in all past major crises humans/politicians have faced, it's too late. Drop futile ego-tripping heckling from the mercenary/ignorant sidelines, antigoracle; start contributing to solutions instead of adding to the problem and procrastination. :)
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2015
to Howhot:

Good to 'see' you again too. I appreciate your response, and we should just agree to disagree on those points. We both have good reasons for our opinions, and we both know enough about each other's reasons to respect the other's point of view.
jljenkins
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2015
antigoracle 0.7 / 5 (600) Nov 25, 2015
What an utter piece of rubbish. The facts speaks for themselves.


In 25 years as a statistitician I can assure you that I have never hear them mumble a syllable. I have, however, heard pathetic blowhards that love the sound of their own voice use them as sock puppets, though, as you so well demonstrate.

Captain Stumpy

5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015

When you respond to them in a forum like this, you are taking their mindless drivel and making it a part of the discourse

@whopper
So it is better to allow the pseudoscience free reign on a science site?
where is the logic in that?


I call "addict!!!". You don't get the point, do you? "Reign"??? They don't exist until you dignify them with a response. Reign??? How addicted to arguing with trolls are you that you can rationalize that you're doing some good? How many hours have you spent doing that? Name one that has ever gotten real. One.
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2015
I am personally not arguing with the trolls. I engage with them so someone reading their comments has it deconstructed as well. Statements like "there's been no warming for x years", which was never correct, has become pervasive because people were allowed to repeat it endlessly without public challenge.

I too am a statistician and it's extremely easy for someone to misrepresent data because the average person really doesn't understand it (and that is not their fault, they're not taught). This includes the journalists trying to report it. And in that case, we have to challenge those who are wrong and those who are lying - not to change their minds but to stop them corrupting others.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2015
I am personally not arguing with the trolls. I engage with them so someone reading their comments has it deconstructed as well. Statements like "there's been no warming for x years", which was never correct, has become pervasive because people were allowed to repeat it endlessly without public challenge.

I too am a statistician and it's extremely easy for someone to misrepresent data because the average person really doesn't understand it (and that is not their fault, they're not taught). This includes the journalists trying to report it. And in that case, we have to challenge those who are wrong and those who are lying - not to change their minds but to stop them corrupting others.

Hear! Hear!. :)
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2015
we have to challenge those who are wrong and those who are lying - not to change their minds but to stop them corrupting others.


Agree 100%. There's too much feigned certainty about a very uncertain system. Statistics perhaps don't tell us as much as we give them credit for. Just for fun I flipped a coin 30 times. One side was red and the other black. 20 times the coin came up black and 10 times red. In that data set, the coin was twice as likely to be black even though the odds are supposed to be the same. Why the discrepancy and why the black color dominance? What can we do to make the next set even?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2015
I also thought this was interesting.

In [Edward] Lorenz's case (whose model of turbulence celebrated its 50th anniversary recently), his equations about atmospheric behavior were, by and large, eminently reasonable. He supersimplified and saw that if he perturbed the initial conditions, after a certain amount of time, he could predict nothing.


http://phys.org/n...fic.html

In other words, our models work until something unpredictable happens. In the case of the climate, a geological catastrophe, a decrease in solar activity, an increase in phytoplankton (which we are now seeing) etc....We pretend that the only condition that can effect the outcome of climate change is our output of CO2 and Nature continues to prove us wrong. We treat our predictions as Gospel when the fact is, as soon as one condition changes (which happens every single moment of time) the models become less reliable.
AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2015

Captain Stumpy

5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015

When you respond to them in a forum like this, you are taking their mindless drivel and making it a part of the discourse

@whopper
So it is better to allow the pseudoscience free reign on a science site?
where is the logic in that?


Science site. Right. This site puts Adblade adverts on the page. Let's just look at the total lack of class that speaks to. https://www.mywot...lade.com

You get Adblade on torrent and file sharing and porno sites. No legitimate clients. Not one. What kind of serious page would use those adverts? As said many times, this site is totally pimped out and is designed to attract trolls. You are contributing to that, not refuting them. You are creating a forum for them. Most never comment or read the comments. It takes someone with no impulse control or totally naive to feel they need to dignify it with an answer.
antigoresockpuppet
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2015
jeffensley1 /5 (3) 23 hours ago
I also thought...


No, liar, you have not.
antigoresockpuppet
3 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2015
antigoracle 1.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
http://phys.org/n...sts.html
http://phys.org/n...tus.html
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
http://phys.org/n...bal.html
http://phys.org/n...ion.html


That is so fucking sexy how he just posts links like that. I think I'm going to cream my jeans.
AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2015
howhot25 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2015
@G7 and the @antigoracle and all Phys.org; Happy Thanksgiving


Fuck Thanksgiving and fuck anyone that would greet antigoracle. Here. Next time you feel the urge; it's a lot more constructive...and deserving! http://previews.1...poop.jpg
jim_xanara
3 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2015
The problem with antirational is that we're not speaking his language. I'll make an attempt to reply to him in kind.

antigoracle 1.0 / 5 (122) Dec 03, 2015

I'm terrified of Al Gore!


antigoracle 1.0 / 5 (120) 2 minutes later

You are all idiots to not be terrified of Al Gore!


antigoracle 1.0 / 5 (153) 2 minutes later

I'd rather be painted in honey and left tied up on a fire ant mound than shake hands with Al Gore!


antigoracle 1.0 / 5 (153) 2 minutes later

Shite! I'm crapping my pants. I think Al Gore is behind all this!


Hey, Chicken Little, grow a brain and get therapy for your Gore-phobia. We're not here to solve your mental problems. Feckless Al isn't going to tow your trailer away.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2016
GSwift7 wrote:
It's commonly accepted in climate science that 30 years is a good minimum sample size for a data point that isn't too noisy.


@GSwift7, for sea-level trend measurements from tide-gauges it's more like 50-60 years, due to cyclical factors like the AMO.

Ref: http://www.sealev...#howlong

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.