Talk:Global warming hiatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Climate change (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some background re current thinking[edit]

no, not with that data set -- WMC[edit]

Fyfe, et al. used that data set and the parts relevant to the hiatus haven't changed, so the studies of all those authors are still valid. The trend during the hiatus still is still not significantly different from zero. It is just not statistically different from the long term trend either. Perhaps you didn't notice: "We obtain 1972 as the end year of the big hiatus (the period of near-zero trend in the mid-twentieth century) by constructing an optimal piece-wise bilinear fit to the NOAA-Karl data over the period 1950 to 2001." [1] Poodleboy (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: edits as if he was unaware of Fyfe (Feb. 2016) perhaps because some how it hasn't officially been cited in the article. It has a rather distinguished set of consensus authors, many who have been lead authors for the IPCC Working Group I, John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart. The title is "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown"[2]. He has restored the claim about the NOAA-Karl data that they reject, and done so inappropriately in a figure, as if it were fact somehow obvious from the data and not mere opinion supported by the Karl argument that these authors and Trenberth [3] reject. The sentence should be removed from the figure, and if it is to be discussed and disputed, it should be in the article proper. Poodleboy (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I added the Fyfe et al. citation that you suggested (thank you). It is similar to the Dai et al. citation that I added yesterday (and on which Fyfe is a co-author). I hope that helps. Note that Fyfe et al. don't reject the data, which they refer to it as of "high scientific value". instead Fyfe et al. seek an interpretation of the hiatus. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, thanx, but this statement you restored to the figure Temperature anomalies in the updated NOAA dataset show no evidence of a slowdown in the rate of warming post 1998 is not quite right, is it? Fyfe, et al, had no problem finding the slowdown, using the NOAA-Karl data depicted. Poodleboy (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Is that a caption taken from the source of the figure? To avoid OR and our own subjective analysis, I suggest paraphrasing the caption of the source of the figure. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The figure is 2b in the Karl paper. The caption in this article is not the fig 2 caption, but the argument that the recent hiatus is within the 90% confidence range of the long term trend and thus not statistically significant is from that same Karl paper. Of course there are papers which use the more classical 95% confidence range like the IPCC AR5 did, and find that a trend of zero can not be ruled out. It is strange to associate the hiatus conclusion with a figure depicting the NOAA-Karl date that doesn't even depict the trends. That doesn't seem the place to start bringing in other result and figures that actually show the trends.Poodleboy (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to fix up the caption. I think it is possible you've been misinterpreting what Karl et al. say. They find a slower upward trend in T since 1880 than was previous estimated. This slower trend is in line with the recent trend since 1998. This means, among other things, that there has been "no hiatus" or slow down in the recent trend. I hope that helps. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You correctly summarize the Karl, et al, argument, but the figure is a strange place to be doing it, because other more prominent authors still see a hiatus in more recent publications based upon this same data, so it is not just a matter of eyeballing it. If this article is to be just a summary of a primary source, the Karl paper, doesn't WP:SECONDARY require us to defer to the reliable, published secondary source, Frye (2016) to interpret this data? "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Poodleboy (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I would describe the Karl et al., the Fyfe et al., and the Dai et al. articles as primary (though Nature and Science articles have a special status, since those journals are widely read by the broader scientific community). The Trenberth commentary (which you suggested), however, is what I would call secondary. Anyway, I don't see a major problem, here, at least not compared to other Wikiarticles. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fyfe would be primary for Fyfe, but secondary for the Karl data. Let's not dip to the general wiki standard.Poodleboy (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added citations to sources that interested you. Of course, you are welcome to add more. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead[edit]

The following sentence in the third paragraph of the lead is confusing.

"The slowdown had now ended, and there had been record temperatures in 2014 and 2015.[18] "

While the warming trend might have been updated a bit, the year 2015 was warmer than previous years. This is shown in one of the figures in the lead. More generally, I find sentences in this section, using "had been" rather than "has been" confusing (though I know that other editors might disagree with this). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The content is mostly OK but the writing style is a mess -- in other words, this is a typical Wikipedia article. Whatever you can do to clarify is fine. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I took this sentence out, moved citation to SciAm up within paragraph. Note that 2015 is discussed in last paragraph of lead, so we don't this sentence anyway. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the article shouldn't even exist, because there never actually was a hiatus. (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The claims of "hiatus" have been proven to be in error.[edit]

This has been the case for a few years now. And yet the bulk of this article still reads as if the hiatus were a real event, rather than a misconception. (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)