Judith Curry study: Global warming stop could last into 2030s

Science2.0 reports:

A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Read more…

13 thoughts on “Judith Curry study: Global warming stop could last into 2030s”

  1. Interesting theory.

    But . . . temps could go up next year or not for another 100. We really don’t know.

  2. “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” — The signal seems to have originated during that night when Al Gore was doing the macarena….hmmm

  3. My thoughts exactly. I’m not going to jump on this bandwagon either. Although it’ll cost me a lot less than the other bandwagon.

  4. Well, the Train Engineer and Co did say the ‘pause’ would have to last another 20 years to invalidate the unproven theory… looks like it will be disproven!

  5. “Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system,” Curry said.

    IOW, the real data has ignored the predetermined AGW causes….

  6. At least it recognizes natural variability and tries to examine it. The failure to do so is the biggest scientific invalidation of the consensus science that focuses on predicting what the dog will do by looking at a hair on the tail of the dog.

  7. An interesting idea, this wave. But seems like it would be a 2nd-order effect on climate, when the models don’t even consider the effect of clouds, which appears to be a 1st-order effect, no? (Loved Pat McBride’s comment. Laughed out loud – and spelled it out, too.)

  8. What are you talking about hair on dog? The primary focus of the consensus (AGW) is on the long term signals/trends. This paper specifically ignores that issue (what will happen in say 2100), so the paper is neither against nor for the main results from AGW. From Judith Curry’s website, she promotes this blurb:

    “The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability.”

    In other words, to analyze internal variability, they first removed the CO2 long term linear signal increases.

    This paper is potentially consistent with AGW. It is neither for nor against it since it specifically ignored the external variability effects (of CO2 or otherwise).

Comments are closed.