Some goodies I’ve marked but don’t have time to go into detail on—
The recent slowdown in near-surface global temperature rise has been tackled by many researchers. This is what research science is all about: proposing hypotheses to explain phenomena. None of the hypotheses offered can, by themselves, explain all of the slowdown. They are likely co-occurring, which is one reason why pinning the exact cause is so challenging. The most recent is that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is transporting upper-oceanic heat to intermediate depths, where satellites and surface observations cannot detect it. This theory is in line with separate theories that Pacific circulation is doing much the same thing. I myself now think the Pacific is probably the largest contributor to heat transport from the surface to ocean depth. GHG concentrations remain higher than at any point in the past 800,00 years (or more). Their radiative properties are not changing – which means they continue to re-radiate longwave energy back toward the Earth’s surface. That energy is going somewhere in the Earth’s climate system because we know it isn’t escaping to space. This process is hypothesized to last another 15-20 years – whether in the Pacific or Atlantic or both.
Some decent science gets written sloppily by an outfit that normally does a pretty good job of writing: meteorological organizations across the world continue to say there is a relatively high chance that 2014 will feature an El Niño. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly how it’s reported in this article:
After initially predicting with 90 per cent certainty we’d see an El Niño by the end of the year, forecasters began scaling back their predictions earlier this month.
Number one – that’s not what forecasters predicted and the difference is important. Forecasters predicted that there was a 90% probability that an El Niño would develop. Probability and certainty are two very separate concepts – which is why we use two different words to describe two different things. You’ll notice the forecasters didn’t predict either a 100% probability or with 100% certainty an El Niño would develop. 90% probability is very high, but there remained a 10% probability an El Niño wouldn’t develop. And so far, it hasn’t. It is still likelier than not that one will develop, but the chances that one won’t develop are higher now than in June. A number of factors have not yet come together to initiate an El Niño event. If they don’t come together, an El Niño likely won’t form this year. But a blog devoted to climate science and energy policy should know how to write about these topics better than they did in this case. Oh, and to all the climate activists who bet the farm an El Niño would definitely form this year and prove all those skeptics wrong … you look just as foolish as the skeptics screaming about their closely-held beliefs. Scientists in particular should know better: wait until groups make observations about El Niño. Predicting them remains much trickier than weather forecasting. Because the next time you shout wolf…
On another note, a cool infographic:
— Alexander Verbeek (@Alex_Verbeek) August 23, 2014
Which means 50% of the U.S. population scattered across the entire rest of this big country is trying to tell urbanites how to lead their lives. Something about tyranny and devotion to small government comes to mind…
— EnergyFactCheck (@EnergyFactCheck) August 20, 2014
This is certainly a small piece of good news. Now the reality check: these numbers need to be orders of magnitude higher to keep global temperatures below 2C above the recent mean. Furthermore, they need to be higher in every country. China’s deployment of renewable energy dwarfs the U.S.’s and even that isn’t enough. This is good, but we need much better.
More of this while we’re at it: dialogue between people and climate scientists.
Okay, that’s it. I have my own paper to write. Back to it.