The Decline of Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave Theory on Climate Change

The Stadium Wave theory, proposed by Judith Curry, has been a subject of considerable scrutiny and criticism since its inception in 2013. As a hypothesis attempting to explain regional climate variability, the theory’s focus has shifted from addressing the long-term trends in global warming discourse. The theory has been controversial, particularly due to its stance on natural variability versus anthropogenic influence.

Origins and Early Developments

The original paper by Wyatt and Judith A. Curry, "Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century," was published in October 2013. This hypothesis posited that a significant portion of climate variability could be attributed to hemispheric climate signals influenced by regional factors such as sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic. However, the theory quickly faced criticism and refutation. Kravtsov Sergey later joined the 'Stadium Wave Team,' taking on a leading role in defending and refining the theory.

Controversy and Criticism

The controversy surrounding the Stadium Wave theory escalated in May 2014 when Michael Mann, Byron Steinman, and Sonya Miller published a paper titled "On Forced Temperature Changes, Internal Variability, and the AMO." This paper argued that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was significantly overestimated in the original Stadium Wave paper, suggesting that the theory was flawed in its attribution of warming trends.

In response, Kravtsov, Curry, and their colleagues published "Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century" in October 2014. This followed with another paper by Steinman, Mann, and Miller in February 2015, titled "Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures." In December 2015, Kravtsov and others published a comment on "Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures," further extending the debate.

Final Developments and Criticism

The debate reached its peak in January 2016 with the publication of "The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth" by Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Byron A. Steinman, Martin Tingley, and Sonya K. Miller. This paper provided an in-depth analysis of the recent warming trends and the potential contributions from natural variability.

However, by April 2016, Kravtsov and Cullicut put forward a new paper titled "On semi-empirical attribution of multidecadal climate variability," which further refines the Stadium Wave theory. This paper, published in final form in February 2017, represented the last significant contribution to the theory.

Modern Consensus and Interpretations

Despite the persistence of the Stadium Wave theory, the scientific community has largely moved away from its acceptance. Dr. Michael Mann, another prominent climatologist, explained the status of the AMO in addressing the "hiatus" in recent warming trends. As stated by Mann: "Some researchers have in the past attributed a portion of Northern Hemispheric warming to a warm phase of the AMO. The true AMO signal instead appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily."

In essence, the Stadium Wave theory is now considered an artifact of its methodologies, with newer analysis suggesting that natural variability does not significantly contribute to recent warming trends. The theory has effectively been waved goodbye by the scientific community.

Conclusion

The decline of the Stadium Wave theory reflects a broader shift in the understanding of climate change. As science continues to evolve, hypotheses and theories are subject to rigorous scrutiny and re-evaluation. Understanding the decline of the Stadium Wave theory provides insights into the ongoing process of scientific inquiry and the importance of empirical evidence in shaping our understanding of climate change.