Are negative forces playing a larger role than expected?
February 26, 2016 7:51 PM Subscribe
Fyfe, Meehl, England, Mann et al. (2016) Nature climate change article: A lot of ink has been spilt about global warming.
A big and recent argument has been on the last 10-15 years and whether (or not) we have had a substantial reduction or change in the warming rate, sometimes called "the pause".
A major development: some of the top IPCC authors (including Michael Mann) have just published a commentary suggesting it's real...
...and in this paper they argue that yes, there has been a "slowdown" (not a "pause" or "hiatus", necessarily) and that science needs to acknowledge it, and more importantly, understand it, as the slowdown raises numerous questions: how does the actual temperature behavior compare with the models, and are we failing to understand the positive and negative feedbacks?
This new publication (which includes big name authors) is bold and directly calls out other global warming supporters supporters such as Lewandosky et al. 2016 and contracts their claim that "...there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual. "
Some speculate this is a political reaction to the recent policitally-motivated CSIRO firings (e.g. if the science of global warming is "settled" then there is no need for spending money on it, so adding doubt is a cynical but self-interested form of job security): CSIRO Swings Job Axe
Others skeptical scientists say they have been arguing this point for years: Making sense of the early 2000s slowdown
Although the recent Karl et al. 2015 paper recently raised the recent rates of warming, the Fyfe et al. paper suggests that those changes were modest and ultimately don't affect their conclusion:
"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 that previously thought, or are negative forces playing a larger role than expected?"
...and in this paper they argue that yes, there has been a "slowdown" (not a "pause" or "hiatus", necessarily) and that science needs to acknowledge it, and more importantly, understand it, as the slowdown raises numerous questions: how does the actual temperature behavior compare with the models, and are we failing to understand the positive and negative feedbacks?
This new publication (which includes big name authors) is bold and directly calls out other global warming supporters supporters such as Lewandosky et al. 2016 and contracts their claim that "...there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual. "
Some speculate this is a political reaction to the recent policitally-motivated CSIRO firings (e.g. if the science of global warming is "settled" then there is no need for spending money on it, so adding doubt is a cynical but self-interested form of job security): CSIRO Swings Job Axe
Others skeptical scientists say they have been arguing this point for years: Making sense of the early 2000s slowdown
Although the recent Karl et al. 2015 paper recently raised the recent rates of warming, the Fyfe et al. paper suggests that those changes were modest and ultimately don't affect their conclusion:
"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 that previously thought, or are negative forces playing a larger role than expected?"
A change in acceleration is called jerk.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's Friday night, I've drunk a bit too much wine... what's it called when something, when stressed, flexes to a certain point, and then shatters?
That's what happening now with C02 absorption in the oceans. Suddenly we'll reach a certain point and something is going to break.
posted by My Dad at 8:43 PM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's what happening now with C02 absorption in the oceans. Suddenly we'll reach a certain point and something is going to break.
posted by My Dad at 8:43 PM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
what's it called when something, when stressed, flexes to a certain point, and then shatters?
Plastic deformation then fracture.
posted by Talez at 8:51 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Plastic deformation then fracture.
posted by Talez at 8:51 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Spoiler: They think it's "modulation by internal variability ... augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions."
I wonder what adding in the 2015 data would do to their moving averages.
posted by sfenders at 9:11 PM on February 26, 2016
I wonder what adding in the 2015 data would do to their moving averages.
posted by sfenders at 9:11 PM on February 26, 2016
A change in acceleration is called jerk.
And the fourth derivative is called jounce or snap because physics is the grooviest of the natural sciences
posted by clockzero at 9:31 PM on February 26, 2016 [22 favorites]
And the fourth derivative is called jounce or snap because physics is the grooviest of the natural sciences
posted by clockzero at 9:31 PM on February 26, 2016 [22 favorites]
All I can say is that it was *brown* by the beginning of July last year in my corner of the usually green and soggy PNW. By August it was like powdered death. There was also a massive cloud of smoke from a forest fire that blotted out the sun at noontime.
What's next summer going to be like?
posted by My Dad at 9:45 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
What's next summer going to be like?
posted by My Dad at 9:45 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
what's it called when something, when stressed, flexes to a certain point, and then shatters?
My last relationship.
posted by alex_skazat at 9:46 PM on February 26, 2016 [27 favorites]
My last relationship.
posted by alex_skazat at 9:46 PM on February 26, 2016 [27 favorites]
...what's it called when something, when stressed, flexes to a certain point, and then shatters?
Maybe a step change? That's when a system accepts increasing input and remains the same, until a limit is reached. Then the system undergoes sudden, discontinuous change and behaves very differently.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:01 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe a step change? That's when a system accepts increasing input and remains the same, until a limit is reached. Then the system undergoes sudden, discontinuous change and behaves very differently.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:01 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
Divorce and bankruptcy work that way, too. Slowly at first, and then all at once.
At least in my experience.
posted by notyou at 10:01 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least in my experience.
posted by notyou at 10:01 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Isn't the real issue here that the models didn't predict this and might, therefore, need to be adjusted to account for additional phenomena and/or have less sensitivity to carbon increases? This isn't about whether warming is real or carbon emissions need to be cut dramatically, both of which are true, but just getting an improved understanding of all the mechanisms at play.
posted by Area Man at 10:49 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Area Man at 10:49 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's right. It's just a question about how fast climate change is happening, not about whether or not there's any change at all. In places like the arctic the evidence for warming is dramatic and disturbing, with implications for global weather patterns.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:53 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 10:53 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
what's it called when something, when stressed, flexes to a certain point, and then shatters
I understand the kids call it "the drop"? Back in my day of course we called it the fourth derivative.
posted by No-sword at 1:06 AM on February 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
I understand the kids call it "the drop"? Back in my day of course we called it the fourth derivative.
posted by No-sword at 1:06 AM on February 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Cusp catastrophes, to see the concept in simple equations.
posted by clew at 1:24 AM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by clew at 1:24 AM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
All I can say is that it was *brown* by the beginning of July last year in my corner of the usually green and soggy PNW.
I've never seen winter weather like we've been having in Los Angeles. It's been summer hot, sometimes into the 90s, and then within a day or so of that it will plummet to temps that seem unusually cold for these parts. I go for walks at night, and some nights I wear a big coat and a hat and a scarf and it's still miserably cold, and other nights I can get by fine with short sleeves. And it's been like this for months.
It feels wrong. It's eerie weather, like something is broken. It shouldn't be winter, summer, winter, summer, every few days, all winter long.
Also, you get this feeling like it will never rain again.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:12 AM on February 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
I've never seen winter weather like we've been having in Los Angeles. It's been summer hot, sometimes into the 90s, and then within a day or so of that it will plummet to temps that seem unusually cold for these parts. I go for walks at night, and some nights I wear a big coat and a hat and a scarf and it's still miserably cold, and other nights I can get by fine with short sleeves. And it's been like this for months.
It feels wrong. It's eerie weather, like something is broken. It shouldn't be winter, summer, winter, summer, every few days, all winter long.
Also, you get this feeling like it will never rain again.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:12 AM on February 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
That's the same feeling I get in Boise. The weather flip-flops from unseasonably warm to unseasonably cold. It feels so bizarre and schizophrenic, and it messes with everything that depends on the weather, particularly plant growth. And unseasonably warm is very bad in a place that has hot summers already - I think we're less than 20 years away from unsurvivable heat spikes in the hottest places in the world.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:34 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:34 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
We've been experiencing this over the last few months too, in my part of Australia. At least, it feels that way. Summer, winter, summer, winter. I haven't even attempted to quantify it, but anecdotally I can report that I've heard lots of comments about it feeling "wrong".
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:45 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:45 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the same feeling I get in Boise. The weather flip-flops from unseasonably warm to unseasonably cold. It feels so bizarre and schizophrenic, and it messes with everything that depends on the weather, particularly plant growth. And unseasonably warm is very bad in a place that has hot summers already - I think we're less than 20 years away from unsurvivable heat spikes in the hottest places in the world.
I agree. It has been doing this all over the region, both in the valleys and at altitude. I went over a pass yesterday at about 5000 feet, and the only snow remaining was a few patches in the shade of trees. It was 51F at the pass, and 55F just below the pass, which is warmer than it should have been by a considerable margin.
What's next summer going to be like?
The good news is that most of the mountains got a more normal level of snow this winter, but in some places it looks like it is coming off too fast. Overall I hope it will be an easier summer, though the long term forecast is bad.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:20 AM on February 27, 2016
I agree. It has been doing this all over the region, both in the valleys and at altitude. I went over a pass yesterday at about 5000 feet, and the only snow remaining was a few patches in the shade of trees. It was 51F at the pass, and 55F just below the pass, which is warmer than it should have been by a considerable margin.
What's next summer going to be like?
The good news is that most of the mountains got a more normal level of snow this winter, but in some places it looks like it is coming off too fast. Overall I hope it will be an easier summer, though the long term forecast is bad.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:20 AM on February 27, 2016
The nine inches of snow and 60 degree weather we've had this winter was simultaneously much nicer than last winter and super weird. The wild variation is just as destructive as just being hotter would be.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 3:44 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 3:44 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the fourth derivative is called jounce or snap because physics is the grooviest of the natural sciences
In order: position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle, pop, drop, lock, shot, put.
posted by flabdablet at 6:55 AM on February 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
In order: position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle, pop, drop, lock, shot, put.
posted by flabdablet at 6:55 AM on February 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
I can feel it... I can feel "the pause" !!!
posted by fairmettle at 7:54 AM on February 27, 2016
posted by fairmettle at 7:54 AM on February 27, 2016
Last year, Lawrence Livermore studied this phenomenon is some detail and concluded: a multitude of small volcanic eruptions.
posted by kozad at 9:17 AM on February 27, 2016
posted by kozad at 9:17 AM on February 27, 2016
When you're putting a lot of heat into a system but not seeing a rise in temperature, that can be a sign you've reached a critical point -- such as boiling water or melting ice -- and that the temperature will start rising again after whatever phase change is absorbing heat at a constant temperature is completed.
I assume all known critical points in our climate systems have been taken into account already; is there much chance there are hidden critical points we haven't noticed yet?
posted by jamjam at 1:25 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I assume all known critical points in our climate systems have been taken into account already; is there much chance there are hidden critical points we haven't noticed yet?
posted by jamjam at 1:25 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wisconsin reporting in. 55 and sunny today. Freezing temperatures with snow early next. It's been like this all winter, with 20-50 degree temperatures in some cases over as short of a period as a day. I'm frankly surprised we haven't seen the rise of the Snownado.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:21 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:21 PM on February 27, 2016
I assume all known critical points in our climate systems have been taken into account already; is there much chance there are hidden critical points we haven't noticed yet?
Polar ice.
It acts exactly in the way you describe. By melting, it takes in energy while keeping temperature at a ceiling gf 0C.
And accounting for polar ice volume and changes in ice volume is hard, hard work.
posted by ocschwar at 3:24 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
a multitude of small volcanic eruptions
Awesome. Sooo... could we have more of those, please?
(That question would horrify the me of 2006, but a decade later, I just want a stable climate and don't care if it's through geo-engineering or what.)
posted by salvia at 6:51 PM on February 27, 2016
Awesome. Sooo... could we have more of those, please?
(That question would horrify the me of 2006, but a decade later, I just want a stable climate and don't care if it's through geo-engineering or what.)
posted by salvia at 6:51 PM on February 27, 2016
(I mean, I do care. But I'd rather have the lesser of two evils than the worst case scenario.)
posted by salvia at 6:52 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by salvia at 6:52 PM on February 27, 2016
There's something very odd about that Livermore volcano article - it says that the warmest year on record was 1998. But according to the NOAA, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 were all warmer than 1998, with 2015 being the warmest on record.
posted by Frowner at 7:00 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by Frowner at 7:00 PM on February 27, 2016
I mean, that may be a slowdown in warming rate, but it sure isn't a pause.
posted by Frowner at 7:01 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by Frowner at 7:01 PM on February 27, 2016
With so many people saying the weather feels "wrong", I would love to see some actual studies about recent weather patterns to confirm whether it historically unusual, or just confirmation bias. The weather is one of those things where everyone thinks their own neck of the woods has crazy weather that changes all the time.
posted by pravit at 10:09 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pravit at 10:09 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
> I would love to see some actual studies about recent weather patterns to confirm whether it historically unusual, or just confirmation bias.
Can we please, please avoid rehashing things over and over and over again after they are the consensus of science? At the very least, could you find some actual studies about weather and report on them to us, rather than casting faint doubt on the scientific consensus but not providing anything of substance?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:57 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can we please, please avoid rehashing things over and over and over again after they are the consensus of science? At the very least, could you find some actual studies about weather and report on them to us, rather than casting faint doubt on the scientific consensus but not providing anything of substance?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:57 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
And funnily enough, these past few years I've been using the readily available weather records for my area to compare weather that feels "wrong" with past weather. Lo and behold, the weather actually is "wrong", in that we are regularly getting days that used to be anomalies, and we're getting multiple anomalies in the same month. And on average, the summer weather is hotter, and the cool spells are less cool. We had a "cool" summer a couple of years ago that was a "typical" summer for, say, the eighties.
I would be surprised if everyone who is saying that the weather feels "wrong" just has confused memories about the past (especially with the big dramatic stuff out west - surely people would remember the many, many fires, etc, that would have had to have happened when they were younger). What's more, I would be surprised if many people here didn't look at weather records - we all do nothing but sit in front of screens all day.
posted by Frowner at 5:51 AM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would be surprised if everyone who is saying that the weather feels "wrong" just has confused memories about the past (especially with the big dramatic stuff out west - surely people would remember the many, many fires, etc, that would have had to have happened when they were younger). What's more, I would be surprised if many people here didn't look at weather records - we all do nothing but sit in front of screens all day.
posted by Frowner at 5:51 AM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Are negative forces playing a larger role than expected?
If by "forces" you mean "forcings" then this may help:
no.
-------quote from Arthur Smith's excellent answer at HotWhopper, linked above------
"... the difference .... is a philosophy on what is explainable about Earth's climate. In principle it's an understandable physical system, so every little dip and blip has some physical cause, and scientists can try to track down what exactly was the process that led to each little fluctuation. On the other hand, ... all the little stuff is just (natural) "noise" - yes it has a cause, but it may be really hard to trace, and in the long run it averages to zero and doesn't matter.
So thinking of natural variation as "noise", there was no slowdown. Thinking of it as explainable stuff, yes, there was a change that had some cause and there were a number that could explain it. I don't think either side is wrong, they just have different perspectives.
------end quote-------
posted by hank at 8:22 AM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
If by "forces" you mean "forcings" then this may help:
no.
-------quote from Arthur Smith's excellent answer at HotWhopper, linked above------
"... the difference .... is a philosophy on what is explainable about Earth's climate. In principle it's an understandable physical system, so every little dip and blip has some physical cause, and scientists can try to track down what exactly was the process that led to each little fluctuation. On the other hand, ... all the little stuff is just (natural) "noise" - yes it has a cause, but it may be really hard to trace, and in the long run it averages to zero and doesn't matter.
So thinking of natural variation as "noise", there was no slowdown. Thinking of it as explainable stuff, yes, there was a change that had some cause and there were a number that could explain it. I don't think either side is wrong, they just have different perspectives.
------end quote-------
posted by hank at 8:22 AM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, some itchy trigger fingers in here. I agree with the scientific consensus on global warming.
Anecdotally saying "wow, the weather has felt strange lately" is as scientific as global warming deniers pointing to an unusually cold winter as proof that global warming isn't real.
I was wondering if all the seemingly strange weather (and for what it's worth, I also think the weather has felt "strange" recently) was truly an anomaly or just in line with other weather fluctuations we've seen historically.
Done with this thread.
posted by pravit at 8:50 AM on February 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anecdotally saying "wow, the weather has felt strange lately" is as scientific as global warming deniers pointing to an unusually cold winter as proof that global warming isn't real.
I was wondering if all the seemingly strange weather (and for what it's worth, I also think the weather has felt "strange" recently) was truly an anomaly or just in line with other weather fluctuations we've seen historically.
Done with this thread.
posted by pravit at 8:50 AM on February 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gee, too bad Pravit left already, I'd just gotten round to putting Pravit's question into Google.
Here's the first result on the page, searching for
weather extremes trend
Shorter: Yes.
posted by hank at 10:52 AM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's the first result on the page, searching for
weather extremes trend
Shorter: Yes.
posted by hank at 10:52 AM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
P.S., of course, if you'd prefer another answer, you can vary the search terms.
Here's what pops up (for me, this time, your Google results will vary) to a search for
weather variability trend
posted by hank at 10:54 AM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's what pops up (for me, this time, your Google results will vary) to a search for
weather variability trend
posted by hank at 10:54 AM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's next summer going to be like?
I was just looking at my favourite graph of daily, max-min and historical temps for Calgary, which shows the last month of daily temperatures as being ~4 degrees C above normal. I'm thinking that's what Summer 2016 is going to be like, only with more Trump.
posted by sneebler at 11:16 AM on February 28, 2016
I was just looking at my favourite graph of daily, max-min and historical temps for Calgary, which shows the last month of daily temperatures as being ~4 degrees C above normal. I'm thinking that's what Summer 2016 is going to be like, only with more Trump.
posted by sneebler at 11:16 AM on February 28, 2016
My reading of pravit's comment was that, given the little wave of Mefite anecdata that popped up in this thread (and assuming he's not a climate scientist) was there anyone reading that could comment with authority - or point to a recent, well-supported statement - regarding climate volatility/divergence from the in-living-memory norm.
I "sit in front of screens all day" and have no idea whether the historical weather records concur with my growing sense that the weather is "wrong." On the other hand, I live in Melbourne, Australia so the weather here is intrinsically "wrong" (or will be for the next 30 minutes, at least).
posted by Lesser Spotted Potoroo at 2:26 PM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I "sit in front of screens all day" and have no idea whether the historical weather records concur with my growing sense that the weather is "wrong." On the other hand, I live in Melbourne, Australia so the weather here is intrinsically "wrong" (or will be for the next 30 minutes, at least).
posted by Lesser Spotted Potoroo at 2:26 PM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure if this meets your needs as far as Melbourne's weather, but there are several stories on NASA's web site that might do the trick. I don't follow Australian climate stories so much, but you could try here.
posted by sneebler at 7:38 PM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sneebler at 7:38 PM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Another approach to quantifying the weirdness of the weather would be to look at the rate at which records are set. Given a data-based historical model of climate as it has been up to 1950 (or whenever) it must be possible to calculate the rate at which you would expect new records to be set in a given area, which you can then reality check against the historical record for that area in the decades since your cutoff year.
Anyone seen studies doing something like that?
posted by johnabbe at 9:58 PM on February 28, 2016
Anyone seen studies doing something like that?
posted by johnabbe at 9:58 PM on February 28, 2016
For Johnabbe, here's an example of a search for your question
Click "Images" once you get to the results page.
posted by hank at 6:48 PM on February 29, 2016
Click "Images" once you get to the results page.
posted by hank at 6:48 PM on February 29, 2016
I read a factoid somewhere that said that, globally, we're setting record highs at a rate of 2:1 to record lows and that the rate that records are being set is as high as it's ever been.
If climate change wasn't happening, we'd see the rate of record setting steadily decrease over time and they'd be about evenly split between highs and lows.
Ah, here we are.
posted by VTX at 7:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
If climate change wasn't happening, we'd see the rate of record setting steadily decrease over time and they'd be about evenly split between highs and lows.
Ah, here we are.
posted by VTX at 7:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older The New Republic has been sold again. | Another basic vulnerability found in Linux Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Zalzidrax at 7:59 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]