Dear Fyfe 2016 Co-Authors,
All of you by virtue of being experts of the highest caliber possess a nuanced understanding light-years beyond ordinary citizens, politicians and business leaders. Belonging within that rarified world you risk being out of touch with how non-scientists, particularly those with hostile agendas, read your papers. To us Fyfe et al. 2016 offered up a muddled Rorschach test rather than the promised clarifications.
Please give this summary of my previous effort a moment to see if something resonates, or not. I don’t need a response, all I'm hoping is for you to take it seriously, if only for a moment.
¶10 Understanding of the recent slowdown also built upon prior research into the causes of the so-called big hiatus from the 1950s to the 1970s. During this period, increased cooling from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols roughly offset the warming from increasing GHGs (which were markedly lower than today). This offsetting contributed to an approximately constant global mean surface temperature (GMST). Ice-core sulfate data from Greenland support this interpretation of GMST behaviour in the 1950s to 1970s, and provide compelling evidence of large temporal increases in atmospheric loadings of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. The IPO was another contributory factor to the big hiatus.
Clarify the process so people can 'appreciate' what you're talking about.
Sulfate aerosols reflected the sun’s energy back into space
before it had the opportunity to be converted into the infrared energy
that fuels our climate system.
Thus a cooling trend in the GMST and the global system.
¶11 Research motivated by the warming slowdown has also led to a fuller understanding of ocean heat uptake. … In summary, research into the causes of the slowdown has been enabled by a large body of prior research, and represents an important and continuing scientific effort to quantify the climate signals associated with internal decadal variability, natural external forcing and anthropogenic factors.
Clarify the process …
The heat was moved into the oceans where ~90% of our climate system’s heat resides, thus it was absorbed into the global climate system - even if not registering in the GMST estimate.
Help people viscerally visualize the dynamics.
¶13 Recent claims by Lewandowsky et al. that scientists “turned a routine fluctuation into a problem for science” and that “there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual”26were made in the context of an examination of whether warming has ceased, stopped or paused. …
What’s the point in picking this bone with the Lewandowsky paper?
Worst your paper doesn’t acknowledge, the massive disinformation campaign surrounding the recent faux hiatus and how the faux hiatus has been artificially hyper-inflated with a significance it does not warrant.
¶15 … Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices …
Why not demand your opponents truthfully reflect what scientists are explaining?
Why not a bit of moral indignation at the general acceptability of having your information constantly misrepresented and lied about?
¶18 "Superimposed on this forced anthropogenic response are small signals of solar irradiance changes, cooling and recovery from volcanic eruptions and internal variability.”
A standout sentence. Build on to it. Internal variability, that is various vectors of heat transport.
Come up with some illustrative paragraphs that convey the notion of our dynamic global heat/moisture distribution engine, rather than showing up with a list.
¶21 The big hiatus and warming slowdown periods correspond to times during which the dominant mode of decadal variability in the Pacific—the IPO—was in its negative phase. …
No helpful narrative, instead you repeat and reinforce the “hiatus” dog-whistle 13 times and never draw a clean qualitative distinction between the “big hiatus” (reflection of sun’s rays) and the “faux hiatus” (heat moving away from the surface).
Besides, even more important - Why not point out that no one knows precisely how these numbers relate to future impacts anyways, so why are leaders and the public sweating such trivial deviations?
Bring the discuss back to the important issues, the well understood fundamentals dynamics that are in motion.