Nature | News Feature

Translations

عربي

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

Article tools

Tim Graham/Robert Harding Picture Library

The Pacific Ocean may hold the key to understanding why global warming has stalled.

The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.

For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.”

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases.

Nate Mantua/NOAA

But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

But even those scientists who remain confident in the underlying models acknowledge that there is increasing pressure to work out just what is happening today. “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. “Now it’s something to explain.”

Researchers have followed various leads in recent years, focusing mainly on a trio of factors: the Sun1, atmospheric aerosol particles2 and the oceans3. The output of energy from the Sun tends to wax and wane on an 11-year cycle, but the Sun entered a prolonged lull around the turn of the millennium. The natural 11-year cycle is currently approaching its peak, but thus far it has been the weakest solar maximum in a century. This could help to explain both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the model simulations, which include a higher solar output than Earth has experienced since 2000.

An unexpected increase in the number of stratospheric aerosol particles could be another factor keeping Earth cooler than predicted. These particles reflect sunlight back into space, and scientists suspect that small volcanoes — and perhaps even industrialization in China — could have pumped extra aerosols into the stratosphere during the past 16 years, depressing global temperatures.

Some have argued that these two factors could be primary drivers of the hiatus, but studies published in the past few years suggest that their effects are likely to be relatively small4, 5. Trenberth, for example, analysed their impacts on the basis of satellite measurements of energy entering and exiting the planet, and estimated that aerosols and solar activity account for just 20% of the hiatus. That leaves the bulk of the hiatus to the oceans, which serve as giant sponges for heat. And here, the spotlight falls on the equatorial Pacific.

Blowing hot and cold

Just before the hiatus took hold, that region had turned unusually warm during the El Niño of 1997–98, which fuelled extreme weather across the planet, from floods in Chile and California to droughts and wildfires in Mexico and Indonesia. But it ended just as quickly as it had begun, and by late 1998 cold waters — a mark of El Niño’s sister effect, La Niña — had returned to the eastern equatorial Pacific with a vengeance. More importantly, the entire eastern Pacific flipped into a cool state that has continued more or less to this day.

This variation in ocean temperature, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle. The cycle reverses every 15–30 years, and in its positive phase, the oscillation favours El Niño, which tends to warm the atmosphere (see ‘The fickle ocean’). After a couple of decades of releasing heat from the eastern and central Pacific, the region cools and enters the negative phase of the PDO. This state tends towards La Niña, which brings cool waters up from the depths along the Equator and tends to cool the planet. Researchers identified the PDO pattern in 1997, but have only recently begun to understand how it fits in with broader ocean-circulation patterns and how it may help to explain the hiatus.

One important finding came in 2011, when a team of researchers at NCAR led by Gerald Meehl reported that inserting a PDO pattern into global climate models causes decade-scale breaks in global warming3. Ocean-temperature data from the recent hiatus reveal why: in a subsequent study, the NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming6. In a third paper, the group used computer models to document the flip side of the process: when the PDO switches to its positive phase, it heats up the surface ocean and atmosphere, helping to drive decades of rapid warming7.

A key breakthrough came last year from Shang-Ping Xie and Yu Kosaka at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. The duo took a different tack, by programming a model with actual sea surface temperatures from recent decades in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and then seeing what happened to the rest of the globe8. Their model not only recreated the hiatus in global temperatures, but also reproduced some of the seasonal and regional climate trends that have marked the hiatus, including warming in many areas and cooler northern winters.

“It was actually a revelation for me when I saw that paper,” says John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria. But it did not, he adds, explain everything. “What it skirted was the question of what is driving the tropical cooling.”

Univ. Washington/IPCC

That was investigated by Trenberth and John Fasullo, also at NCAR, who brought in winds and ocean data to explain how the pattern emerges4. Their study documents how tropical trade winds associated with La Niña conditions help to drive warm water westward and, ultimately, deep into the ocean, while promoting the upwelling of cool waters along the eastern equatorial region. In extreme cases, such as the La Niña of 1998, this may be able to push the ocean into a cool phase of the PDO. An analysis of historical data buttressed these conclusions, showing that the cool phase of the PDO coincided with a few decades of cooler temperatures after the Second World War (see ‘The Pacific’s global reach’), and that the warm phase lined up with the sharp spike seen in global temperatures between 1976 and 1998 (ref. 4).

“I believe the evidence is pretty clear,” says Mark Cane, a climatologist at Columbia University in New York. “It’s not about aerosols or stratospheric water vapour; it’s about having had a decade of cooler temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific.”

Heated debate

Cane was the first to predict the current cooling in the Pacific, although the implications weren’t clear at the time. In 2004, he and his colleagues found that a simple regional climate model predicted a warm shift in the Pacific that began around 1976, when global temperatures began to rise sharply9. Almost as an afterthought, they concluded their paper with a simple forecast: “For what it is worth the model predicts that the 1998 El Niño ended the post-1976 tropical Pacific warm period.”

It is an eerily accurate result, but the work remains hotly contested, in part because it is based on a partial climate model that focuses on the equatorial Pacific alone. Cane further maintains that the trend over the past century has been towards warmer temperatures in the western Pacific relative to those in the east. That opens the door, he says, to the possibility that warming from greenhouse gases is driving La Niña-like conditions and could continue to do so in the future, helping to suppress global warming. “If all of that is true, it’s a negative feedback, and if we don’t capture it in our models they will overstate the warming,” he says.

There are two potential holes in his assessment. First, the historical ocean-temperature data are notoriously imprecise, leading many researchers to dispute Cane’s assertion that the equatorial Pacific shifted towards a more La Niña-like state during the past century10. Second, many researchers have found the opposite pattern in simulations with full climate models, which factor in the suite of atmospheric and oceanic interactions beyond the equatorial Pacific. These tend to reveal a trend towards more El Niño-like conditions as a result of global warming. The difference seems to lie, in part, in how warming influences evaporation in areas of the Pacific, according to Trenberth. He says the models suggest that global warming has a greater impact on temperatures in the relatively cool east, because the increase in evaporation adds water vapour to the atmosphere there and enhances atmospheric warming; this effect is weaker in the warmer western Pacific, where the air is already saturated with moisture.

Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
505,
Pages:
276–278
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/505276a

References

  1. Lean, J. L. & Rind, D. H. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15708 (2009).

  2. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1342113449 (2011).

  3. Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. T., Hu, A. & Trenberth, K. E. Nature Clim. Change 1, 360364 (2011).

  4. Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. Earth’s Future http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000165 (2013).

  5. Feulner, G. & Rahmstorf, S. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L05707 (2010).

  6. Balmaseda, M. A., Trenberth, K. E. & Källén, E. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 17541759 (2013).

  7. Meehl, G. A., Hu, A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. & Trenberth, K. E. J. Clim. 26, 72987310 (2013).

  8. Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S.-P. Nature 501, 403407 (2013).

  9. Seager, R. et al. in Earth’s Climate: The Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction. Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 147, 105120 (2004).

  10. DiNezio, P., Clement, A. & Vecchi, G. A. Eos 91, 141152 (2010).

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

383 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Merging together Satellite, Thermometer and Proxy data so as to arrive a view of what has happened in the last 200+ years we get http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/200YearsofTemperatureSatelliteThermometerandProxy_zpsd17a97c0.gif
  2. Avatar for Dmitriy Shnitko
    Dmitriy Shnitko
    Strengthening Pacific trade winds are a sign of global cooling according to this Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060501/full/news060501-5.html.
  3. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    "The cause, they say, is greenhouse gases. And with emissions still climbing, Pacific winds could potentially decline by more than 10% by the end of the century, they predict." Well as there is a well known and observed ~60 year cycle to the Pacific data I am not sure just how much this modelled projection can be trusted.
  4. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    GISS data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt Plotted as per Nate Drakes PhD 's suggested method. For some reason the data does not appear to match that which Nate used (but I am sure there is an innocent reason - perhaps I got the data wrong). http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISS11575LowpassSG15_zps3d9a93bb.gif
  5. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    As per Nate's suggestion I have added the SG to my earlier plot for HadCrut4. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
  6. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Figs from Curry & Wyatt with clear ~ 60 year signals in the various data sets. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/StadiumWaveFig7_zps47c1bc73.png http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/StadiumWaveFig8_zps888a9a96.png http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/StadiumWaveFig9_zpsf3c705a6.png http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/StadiumWaveFig10_zps366be8ef.png
  7. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Original Stadium Wave paper showing clear ~60 years cyclic nature to the data http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/WyattandPeters2012_zpse2e75309.png
  8. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stadium-wave.pdf Wyatt & Curry Confirms ~60 year patterns in the Arctic data. See Figs 7 though 10 As does Robert Way http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/Arctic_SAT_Ann.jpg
  9. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    The green lines are NOT there. They can't be. We said so!
  10. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Engineers build the instruments that scientists rely on. Means (pun) that we do know stuff.
  11. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    No, I was just getting a more technically accurate description of what he so obviously has NO knowledge about. You'll be telling me next that simple mean aren't a filter either!
  12. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    So you think that a CTRM is not an FIR filter as well do you? Despite the fact that Vaughn Pratt DOES think so, as do all the Educational and wiki references.
  13. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    As it happens, when I did do this commercial work, I would indeed have been in very great trouble if I had even mentioned what the blank space on the map was in Cheltenham. Now things are a bit more relaxed. In any case my PV expired long ago. You DO know what a PV is don't you?
  14. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Climate Scientist: I want a tool to examine Climate Temperatures. Geek: How do you define Climate? Climate Scientist: Longer than 30 years. Geek: So you want a tool that will show how the planet's temperature responds in periods of more than 30 years? Climate Scientist: Yes. Geek: Well basic theory says that a Low Pass filter with a corner frequency of 15 years will do exactly what you want. Climate Scientist: But that's not complicated enough and anyway that does not show me what I like to see. It says that there are natural oscillations in the signal and my theory says they don't exist. Geek: ??????????
  15. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    I avoid nothing other than the use of crap metaphors. Suggesting that asking for further scientific clarification is killing is pathetic.
  16. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    I read and think extensively. Both sides of the argument. Good debating tactic. You should try it more often yourself. But the IPPC does not agree with your position on storms and cyclones
  17. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    The range that salinity varies over is quite significant in local areas you know. Large tropical rainfall will drop it quite significantly in the first few meters of depth. Currents waft in different levels all the time. The range over which salinity changes locally is quite significant, in very short timescales. Adding a little more via CO2 is unlikely to change that basic fundamental.
  18. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Global Sea Surface Salinity – Current http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/globalsssnowcast.gif For the true range of salinity at present. Varies quite a bit. A tiny, tiny bit more (if any) from CO2 is not going to make much difference.
  19. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    No, I m fairly certain in my science. Real, engineering science. Based on real engineering principles. So tell me, what is wrong with separating temperature data into two bins, Weather (i.e. Decadal and less) and Climate (multi-decadal and more)?. You do know how filters work I suppose. You know, the ones you use to create Monthly and Annual means? What logic is there that says stopping there is a valid choice. Even Nate's filter (and data - where DID that data come from) say that something is going on at longer periods. Its a form of discrimination. Only the ‘right’ filters are allowed. Too long and you are refused entry!
  20. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Show parent comment
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    "CO2 and other GHG emissions such as methane are the initial drivers of climate change - clouds are just a feedback mechanism that amplifies that initial driver." And your PROOF of that is?
  21. Avatar for Lisa_Belise
    Show parent comment
    Lisa_Belise
    I'm happy that you are at least willing to put AGW in the same category as Santa Claus, Giant Lizard masters, and the Matrix. There's hope for you yet. Whether or not you consider the following to be reasonable evidence or not, has zero effect on the actual reality of there being one. http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
  22. Avatar for Lisa_Belise
    Show parent comment
    Lisa_Belise
    The point of the graph, was that the climate models predicted a much HOTTER tropical region, and that region has indeed, warmed the least, and nowhere near their predictions. The "hotspot" predicted, has failed to materialize. It's a demonstration of how climate models fail to predict accurate temperatures in the future. For every chart you can show me that you think proves climate predictions are accurate, I'll provide you with a graph proving otherwise. Here's a link to a list of just a few: http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html You want peer reviewed data? Here's a link to over 1,000 peer reviewed papers, that prove that the Medieval Warm Period, was real, global, and that temps then were warmer than they are today. (Sorry Michael Mann-you and your buddies are wrong. Cant wait to get you on the stand in your own law suit here soon...should be interesting.)
  23. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Patience? Or stubbornness? I'll accept he perseveres, beyond the point of ridiculousness. And his evidence is indeed admirable - taking one tiny subset and using inappropriate analysis techniques on it to claim that the other 99%+ of data and thousands of experts are wrong, is indeed a feat. If only we'd realised that collecting more evidence is pointless, because we can learn everything we ever need to know from one tiny sub-set! Yes Richard, please do "Fight on", every post demonstrates how lacking the denialist position is, unable to provide a coherent well argued case.
  24. Avatar for Lisa_Belise
    Lisa_Belise
    Let's see...didn't the AGW crowd determine that the "science was settled" or some such nonsense back in 1997ish? based on very tiny subsets of research....thank you Michael Mann. And yet data collecting over the intervening 17 years, far from being pointless, has led us to thousands of peer reviewed papers and experts proving that it was anything BUT settled. Now, I don't know what Richard's position on climate change is. He hasn't revealed any such thing to me. But if I were you, I'd be careful about ASSUMING that you know what his or my or anyone else's stance on science or climate change is reading a paragraph or two, and without any evidence to support your assumptions. The ability to read minds or "know" what someone else thinks is beyond the point of ridiculousness and you'll be hard pressed to offer up a coherent argument in favor of such a thing. And besides, Cook et al already attempted to do such a thing and were mocked far and wide by both sides for pretending to practice science.
  25. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Quote the rest, instead of a single phrase out of context. It's long, but the clear statement is that research indicates that this is not a change in the overall warming rate, just a short-term fluctuation.
  26. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    They don't exist, they are something that we put on the data to try to demonstrate trends, or in your case to falsely give an impression of such.
  27. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Petulant and Anti-science. In science we NEVER prove something. We may disprove it, we may have string evidence that supports it and even makes it the "settled" theory, but always open to challenge if new theory or evidence comes along. But we NEVER, EVER "prove" science. You are completely allowed to demonstrate your theory is the best fit to the data, but that has to be the whole data, not just a limited set you select because it fits and ignore the rest because it doesn't.
  28. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Advice is only useful if you can understand it, for which you need wisdom and openness, neither of which you have demonstrated. You probably did what you do with everything else - took those bits that confirm your own closed viewpoint, and just filtered out the rest.
  29. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Vaughn was helpful and precise in the advice he gave. We had a long and fruitful conversation and he persuaded me round to his 1.2067 value for the CTRM filter. You know, the one Nate claims does not exist (do you want to join the science/engineer deniers also?).
  30. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Like I've said before, Richard is like a man who only has a hammer, so sees everything as a nail. He only knows how to use one tool, and doesn't even really understand that one, so just bangs away randomly.
  31. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Looks like it more a case of a scientist who does not understand how the instruments he uses are built by engineers. Let's use a nice shiny FT rather than a basic filter. Much prettier. None so blind.....
  32. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    What practical engineers did you ask to determine that?
  33. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Ones who are very used to looking for signals in very short time series data. Data windows with less than a full sine wave in and LOTS of noise.
  34. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Read the actual evidence behind that. The fluctuations AVERAGE around 60 years, but do not form a 60 year cycle tied to an external factor such as that you are seeking to manufacture, because that would not account for the fact that some fluctuations are much shorter or longer. The average 60 years is driven by the typical lifetime and breeding pattern of sardines, which affects how long it takes to recover from a population crash. Basic predator-prey dynamics.
  35. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    You are so sure that this can only be a predator/prey cycle. Even though the fishermen thought otherwsie. Ah well, none so blind....
  36. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Very little. A fraction of 1% of the warming. The research is out there, if you were actually interested.
  37. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    We have much longer proxy measures of the data, which would show the cycles if they existed - but don't. You just select short term data sets because they are the only ones which show random fluctuations you can fit to an imaginary cycle. I could pick short segments of data that I could use to fit to ANY cycle length I wanted to, but I don't because that would be dishonest and unprofessional, not a stricture that you are bothered about.
  38. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Proxies are SO accurate as to value and time resolution. I mean, they are almost always an accurate substitute for thermometers. I would love to see you use a Low Pass filter and get an invalid picture of the data. That would be interesting to see :-)
  39. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Exactly - you CHOOSE which evidence, and a tiny selection at that, YOU look at. Real scientists consider all the evidence. At least you've been honest enough to finally admit you are selective about evidence.
  40. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    The difference is that I read both sides of everything, evaluate what I see from a scientific, engineering and logical viewpoint not driven by a single, dogmatic, pre-determined, viewpoint. I also do not insult, threaten or demean anyone. I give polite responses and expect nothing more in return.
  41. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    So, the usual denial tactics, when challenged, resort to abuse? I accept the evidence, but the evidence is that ONE reef system shows surprising resiliency, and the reason that is surprising is that EVERY other reef system studied, which is thousands of research projects, does NOT show this resiliency. So another classic denial tactic, and the one you seem most fond of - selectivity of evidence, using a single atypical incidence to base an argument on even though every other piece of evidence shows the opposite.
  42. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    No Abuse given I trust. Certainly none intended. Sure only one study. But it shows that we do NOT know all there is to know about the system. Curiosity rather than dogma.
  43. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    One complete peak-to-peak instance would be insufficient to demonstrate any cycle. Any data will demonstrate peaks and troughs and to take two adjacent ones with no longer baseline and say it shows a cycle is complete statistical illiteracy.
  44. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    So is the green line wriggling or is it not? Does it not exhibit an apparent cyclic behaviour even with the limited data available? I realise that the 300 years that are required to get to statistical significance has not been reached. Should we wait 'til then? But the Climate data (i.e. longer than 30 years) says different, it agrees with me, there is a cycle to the data and it may well be repetitive.
  45. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    A simple statement of probability. That is what real scientists work in, probability, not your absolutionist statements of faith in your own thoughts.
  46. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    So use simple filters to back your claim, as I do. Ones that remove all but the Climate signal.
  47. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    No, it is the conclusion of an almost total consensus of scientists in the relevant fields based on more research than any other single subject in human history - whereas your assertion has not one shred of published evidence to support it.
  48. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    But more and more evidence that shows it may well be. Or do you too claim that temperatures are constantly rising, no pause at all? Despite what the IPCC now agrees to be true? And a simple filter that only shows Climate data says otherwise also.
  49. Avatar for Bernard Gore
    Show parent comment
    Bernard Gore
    Unfortunately an ocean isn't enough to protect me, and billions of others, form the harm your denialism is doing.
  50. Avatar for Richard Linsley-Hood
    Richard Linsley-Hood
    Or me (and the rest of the world) from your blind dogma.

Fetal tissue

fetal_tissue

The truth about fetal tissue research

The use of aborted fetal tissue has sparked controversy in the United States, but many scientists say it is essential for studies of HIV, development and more.

Agar angst

agar

Lab staple agar hit by seaweed shortage

Dwindling algae harvest imperils reagent essential for culturing microbes.

Optogenetics warning

brain_manipulation

Brain-manipulation studies may produce spurious links to behaviour

Study shows that controlling neurons with light or drugs may affect the brain in more ways than expected.

Logical paradox

Godel_Turing

Paradox at the heart of mathematics makes physics problem unanswerable

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are connected to unsolvable calculations in quantum physics.

Mystery solved?

Ceres

Mysterious bright spots on Ceres are probably salt

Ice also transforms to water vapour in the dwarf planet’s craters, creating an enigmatic haze.

Nature Podcast

cafe

On this week's show...

The dwarf planet Ceres gets a close-up, using fetal tissue in science, and the wasting condition that worsens outcomes for cancer patients.

Know what's happening in science today

Newsletter

Sign up for our daily newsletter

The best science news from around the Web, direct to your inbox every day.

Science jobs from naturejobs