By 2024, it may be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in the peer-reviewed literature. There will always be better and worse science – it depends on the field – but as I said last week, we are now in an era of tactical research, where science is curated to advance the narrative of knowledge. [emphasis, links added]
This makes knowing what is more difficult.
I spend a lot of time on the chaff here at THB, and by reader request I'll try to spend more time on the wheat.
To that end, a number of very interesting recent peer-reviewed papers have crossed my desk this week, which I will share with you today.
Let's get started. . .
The recent surge in global warming has not yet been detected (Beaulieu et al., 2024, open access). Top line results:
“Our results show limited evidence of climate warming; in most surface temperature time series, no changes in warming rates were detected after the 1970s, despite record-breaking temperatures observed in 2023.
The paper adopts the traditional IPCC framework for detection and attribution and assesses what levels of global temperature rise would be required to achieve detection. The author found that the recent “surge” is not very close to the growth rate:
“Given the short-term changes in HadCRUT GMST from 1970 to 2023 and the increasing uncertainty in the location of the change point, the second part (2013 to 2023) will require a slope of at least 0.039∘C/year (more than 100 % increase) currently Statistically different from 0.019 at the α = 0.05 level. The estimated slope of 0.029 ∘C/year is well below the required increment. Although it is still possible that the warming rate has changed since 2013, the time recorded by HadCRUT is simply insufficient. To detect the surge through statistical means at this time.
This paper is sure to spark a lot of debate because it goes against the mind-blowing claims of some well-known scientists. Debate is good for science and for science in the public eye.
The key role of sea surface temperature warming patterns in near-term high-impact weather and climate predictions (Zhao and Knutson 2024, open access). Top line results:
- “Model Bias in Sea Surface Temperature [sea surface temperature] Trend patterns have proven to have profound effects on near-term predictions of high-impact storm statistics, including the frequency of atmospheric rivers, tropical storms, and mesoscale convective systems, as well as hydrologic and climate sensitivities. If future sea surface temperature warming patterns continue to resemble those observed over the past few decades, rather than those simulated/predicted by models, then these results suggest that:
- Future projections of high-impact storms and their associated hydroclimatic changes are quite different, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
- Global hydrological sensitivity is stronger.
- Global warming is significantly reduced due to stronger negative feedbacks and lower climate sensitivity.
This paper identifies systematic biases in how climate models represent ocean temperatures and explores the implications of these biases for future projections of climate.
The paper concludes:
“Our results indicate that if future sea surface temperature trend patterns continue to resemble those observed over the past few decades, rather than those simulated or predicted by climate models, we expect future changes in high-impact storm statistics to look distinct. situation.”
This article may also spark some interesting discussions and future work.
The most important implication for consumers of climate research is to realize Our near-term climate future may include a wider range of possibilities than we (collectively) generally expect or hear discussed.
Robust future projections of the global spatial distribution of major tropical cyclones and sea level pressure gradients (Murakami et al., 2024, open access).
I found this paper particularly interesting because it was published just weeks before hurricanes Helen and Milton made landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast, killing hundreds of people and causing tens of billions of dollars in economic damage.
As shown in the figure below, The new paper projects a significant reduction in the strongest hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico (blue shading).
I’m not sharing this paper because I believe in its predictions from other studies—in fact, tell me what results you want to predict future hurricane rates and I can produce a peer-reviewed study to back it up. This view! – but because it is at odds with major media reports and claims by activists, including some scientists, about hurricane trends and forecasts.
The gap between popular climate discussion and peer-reviewed research, including assessments by IPCC Working Group I, remains wide. This article provides another timely example.
The Honest Broker is written by climate expert Roger Pielke Jr and is reader-supported. If you value what you read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work.
Read the break from The Honest Broker
