That’s what I am talking about Lausten. We get these reports that look and sound like they have valid science behind the papers.
“A consequence is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (Trenberth et al., 2014; von Schuckmann et al., 2016) of which about 92% goes into the ocean, increasing OHC. Primary indicators of a changing climate include increases in global mean surface temperature, sea level, and OHC (Cheng et al., 2017, 2018; Figure 1a). Moreover, OHC and sea level changes are more robust climate indicators with less weather noise, both for global averages (Cheng et al., 2018) and regional changes.”
Data from 2014 to 2018. But!!! In 2013 Nature published a report by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie titled Recent global warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling.
In March of this year Alberto Zaragoza Comendador tries to look into the problem of all the different reports. “How sensitive is the Earth’s climate to greenhouse gases? Speaking about carbon dioxide in particular, how much would air temperatures increase if we doubled atmospheric concentrations of said gas?”
And he goes on to say – “This question lies at the heart of climate science. It is to climate what GDP is to economics – the central concept. So central that it’s very difficult to have a coherent discussion of climate issues if one does not know about sensitivity. But there is a crucial difference between these measures: the layman is somewhat familiar with GDP but not at all familiar with climate sensitivity.”
I relate “climate sensitivity” to forcing.
October 2018 by Nic Lewis - A close reading of Chapters 1 and 2 of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) reveals some interesting changes from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), and other science-relevant statements. This article highlights statements in SR15 relating to carbon emission budgets for meeting the 1.5°C and 2°C targets.
SR15 explains that ‘The IPCC has traditionally defined changes in observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) as a weighted average of near-surface air temperature (SAT) changes over land and sea surface temperature (SST) changes over the oceans’. Consistent with that, the SR15 1.5°C remaining carbon budgets are based on anthropogenic warming up to 2006–2015 of 0.87°C, which is based on surface temperature datasets that mostly combine near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature over the (open) ocean.
Lausten - Point being, if I just say there is a problem with the concept thinking of the scientists being on the same page you would want proof. And if I post just some of the proof, it will be to bothersome to read.
What I am seeing is that the science is pushing ideas in one direction then the other scientists start pushing back in the other direction. In 2009 we had “ Earth’s Upper Atmosphere Cooling Dramatically” Earth's Upper Atmosphere Cooling Dramatically | Space , but that didn’t get much coverage. Now in the last year we have a complete change in direction again going back to the 2009 thinking of the earth cooling. NASA is now saying there is a Cooling Trend in the upper atmosphere. Even Player understands that CO2 causes warming. The warming is supposed to keep warming and moving upward and increase the temperatures of the upper atmospheres. But NASA is telling us now that the upper atmosphere is literally decreasing in radius size due to the dramatic cooling that is taking place. The cause is said to be related to the solar minimum. Which CC has done data dumps on to prove the solar minimum is not enough to really have any effect on Global Warming! Yet, the cooling affect in moving downward toward the oceans. Which takes us back to the atmosphere forcing.
Are we going to have a 2020 election on Climate Change warming? When the Climate Change may be in the beginning of a Climate Change cooling stage. I think it is worth a debate.
Lausten, Thanks for the posting the paper.