Measuring the GW "pause"

[flacaltenn]

Apologize for free-thought exercise here and for getting technical..

I was thinking that this decade long pause in the Warming could be definitively analyzed to find out whether the IPCC numbers and models have failed or not. Certainly, it COULD be due to statistical effects, but more likely it's due to mitigating NATURAL causes or feedbacks.

We KNOW that the IPCC has characterized the effect of natural forcings to be "minimal". And they have reported the "error budget" in most of the AGW analysis.

So you SHOULD be able to tell when the AGW CO2 theory has officially failed by working in the IPCC "natural" causes, their assumptions on feedbacks and their error budget..

Anybody know if this is being done?? It should be...

 

[SSDD]

Apologize for free-thought exercise here and for getting technical..

I was thinking that this decade long pause in the Warming could be definitively analyzed to find out whether the IPCC numbers and models have failed or not. Certainly, it COULD be due to statistical effects, but more likely it's due to mitigating NATURAL causes or feedbacks.

We KNOW that the IPCC has characterized the effect of natural forcings to be "minimal". And they have reported the "error budget" in most of the AGW analysis.

So you SHOULD be able to tell when the AGW CO2 theory has officially failed by working in the IPCC "natural" causes, their assumptions on feedbacks and their error budget..

Anybody know if this is being done?? It should be...

You can bet that it isn't being done within the climate science community. The risk of falsifying the AGW hypothesis and cutting the teats off the cash cow would make that a very unattractive avenue of study....and if a skeptical scientist does it, it woud never get published no matter how true it might be.

 

[flacaltenn]

Apologize for free-thought exercise here and for getting technical..

I was thinking that this decade long pause in the Warming could be definitively analyzed to find out whether the IPCC numbers and models have failed or not. Certainly, it COULD be due to statistical effects, but more likely it's due to mitigating NATURAL causes or feedbacks.

We KNOW that the IPCC has characterized the effect of natural forcings to be "minimal". And they have reported the "error budget" in most of the AGW analysis.

So you SHOULD be able to tell when the AGW CO2 theory has officially failed by working in the IPCC "natural" causes, their assumptions on feedbacks and their error budget..

Anybody know if this is being done?? It should be...

You can bet that it isn't being done within the climate science community. The risk of falsifying the AGW hypothesis and cutting the teats off the cash cow would make that a very unattractive avenue of study....and if a skeptical scientist does it, it woud never get published no matter how true it might be.

I actually hadn't thought that thru -- but you're right.. It WON'T ever get done and/or disseminated to the public. So we're left with the Warmers waiting breathless for Mann, Jones or Hansen to equivocate on whether 0.01 degC warmer is "significant" or not. And the deep skeptic cheap seats declaring victory.

It sounds like a really simple research project to take all the error bars and confidence levels with the mitigating "natural forcings" and tell EXACTLY when the projections go off the rails. Without even having to wait another 4 or 5 years for the data to come in. THAT ought to entice some Warmer into doing it. Simply to speed up the process and move on..

The output would be either that we do not yet have a statistically significant pause because the temp trajectory is still within the window, or that there must be underestimating of other variables -- like the natural forcings or feedbacks or something yet unaccounted for..