From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 9 November 2010
It seems probable that 2010 will be in terms of global annual average temperature statistically identical to the annual temperatures of the past decade. Some eminent climatologists, such as Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, suggest the global annual average temperatures haven’t changed for the past 15 years. We are reaching the point where the temperature standstill is becoming the major feature of the recent global warm period that began in 1980. In brief, the global temperature has remained constant for longer than it has increased. Perhaps this should not be surprising as in the seven decades since 1940 the world has gotten warmer in only two of them, and if one considers each decade individually the increase in temperature in each has barely been statistically significant. Only when the warming in the 1980’s is added to that of the first half of the 1990’s does the change exceed the noise in the system.
But what does this 10-15 year temperature standstill mean?
For some it means nothing. Ten to fifteen years is too short a time period to say anything about climate they would argue pointing out that at least thirty years is needed to see significant changes. They also point out that this decade is warmer than the 1990’s and the 1990’s were warmer than the 1980’s and that is a clear demonstration of global warming.
I know few who would argue that we don’t live in the warmest decade for probably a millennium and there are now few who would argue that the period of warming ended about a decade ago leaving us with a plateau of annual temperatures. However, there is information in the decadal structure of the present warming spell that can say something about what is happening.
All would agree that the global climate is changing constantly within certain limits due to the combination of anthropogenic and natural factors. The manmade factors are postulated to be responsible for climate change whereas the natural factors are taken to be agents of climate variability. The additional greenhouse effect caused by mankind’s emissions is a unique climatic forcing factor in that it operates in one direction only, that of increasing the temperature. If that is the case then something has been cooling the planet. We can say something about what is cooling the earth. The key point about the greenhouse effect in this context is that it depends upon one factor – the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
In the past decade the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm and using those figure the IPCC once estimated that the world should have warmed by at least 0.2 deg C. The fact that the world has not warmed at all means that all the other climatic factors have had a net effect of producing 0.2 deg C of cooling.
But there is more. The counterbalancing climatic factors have not only compensated for the postulated AGW at the end of the decade they have kept the global annual average temperature constant throughout the past 10-15 years when the AGW effect wants to increase it. The key point that makes this constancy fascinating is that for every value of CO2 there is an equilibrium temperature that is higher the greater the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, the higher CO2 concentration at the end of the decade exerts a stronger climate forcing than at the beginning of the decade.
Mirror Image
This makes what has happened in the past decade all the more remarkable. Because the greenhouse effect wants to force the temperature up which in the absence of a cooling influence is what would have happened, the fact that the temperature has remained constant indicates that whatever has been cooling the planet has had to increase in strength at precisely the same rate as the CO2 warming in order to keep the temperature a constant straight line.
This means that for 10-15 years the combined effect of all the Earth’s climate variability factors have increased in such a way as to exactly compensate for the rise in temperature that the increased CO2 would have given us. It is not a question of the earth’s decadal climate cycles adding up to produce a constant cooling effect, they must produce an increasing cooling effect that increases in strength at exactly the same rate as the enhanced greenhouse effect so as to keep the earth’s temperature constant.
Can it really be the case that over the past 15 years the sum total of all the earth’s natural climatic variables such as changes in solar irradiance, volcanoes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation, all of which can change from cooling to warming over decadal timescales, have behaved in such as way as to produce a cooling effect that is the mirror image of the warming postulated by the anthropogenic climate forcings from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, from the changing water vapour, from tropospheric ozone, and from a clearing aerosol burden?
Am I alone in thinking that in the dynamically changing global climate this looks like a contrived, indeed scientifically suspicious, situation?
Is it a coincidence that the human and natural factors balance out this way? I am reminded of a line written by Agatha Christie: “Any coincidence”, said Miss Marple to herself, “is always worth noticing. You can throw it away later if it is only a coincidence.”
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
Could the 10-15 year standstill possibly mean that all the computer climate models contain at least one error?
I also predict that a graph of redundancies amongst Climate Scientists may resemble a Hockey Stick
So increasing levels of CO2 don’t cause increasing temperatures. How many negative counterexamples of a theory does it take to falsify it?
I’m confused by this article, but I’m sure it’s a misreading on my part. In the first paragraph the author writes, “It seems probable that 2010 will be in terms of global annual average temperature statistically identical to the annual temperatures of the past decade… We are reaching the point where the temperature standstill is becoming the major feature of the recent global warm period that began in 1980. In brief, the global temperature has remained constant for longer than it has increased.”
Later, he writes, “…this decade is warmer than the 1990’s and the 1990’s were warmer than the 1980’s and that is a clear demonstration of global warming.
“I know few who would argue that we don’t live in the warmest decade for probably a millennium and there are now few who would argue that the period of warming ended about a decade ago leaving us with a plateau of annual temperatures.”
So, which is it? Has the warming been level for the past decade, or are we still warming and are now “the warmest ever”? My apologies if I’m missing the obvious.
“Scientifically suspicious” is awful charitable.
Actually,
It is probably worse then that, as the temperature only appears to be steady, if one were to take out all of the “adjustments” made to support the AGW fraud, the temperature probably peaked in 98 and we are headed down. It would be really funny, well except for the screaming, if things were to get really cold.
“I know few who would argue that we don’t live in the warmest decade for probably a millennium ”
So you know few people that believe the medieval warm period was warmer than now? It seems the hockeystick team achieved their goal.
Thank You David Whitehouse,
It was an article by you in 2008 that began my questioning of the whole AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately I can not put my name to this thank you due the the toxic nature of my workplace regarding CAGW.
“I know few who would argue that we don’t live in the warmest decade for probably a millennium”
1) The satellite data and the ground station data have not been properly cross calibrated to make a “one instrument” temperature history. The ground data on its own points out that the 1940s may well have been the hottest decade. May.
2) When you move to to tree-rings, you’ve shifted into a realm that’s reliant on odd math. Temperature reconstructions of individual proxies that are calibrated into temperature prior to being combined into a global average show both a strong MWP and a LIA. But taking the pool of all vaguely plausible proxies and weeding for “those that fit the temperature records we’ve got” and then making the assumption that those self-same proxies are also good prior to the calibration period (although they aren’t after the calibration period) leads to a flat temperature profile.
I expect there are more than “a few” that have sympathy for one or both of the caveats I’ve listed.
JamesS
It’s simple.
We live in a warm decade, warmer than the 1990’s which in turn was warmer than the 1980’s. BUT the warming stopped in 2000. It hasn’t got any warmer since then. It has stayed warm. We are at a plateau of temperature.
It’s a brilliant article. devastating logic made all the more incisive by classic British understatement.
Or it could be that the IPCC is wrong. Considering how accurate they have been on a whole slew of other positions, that would be my choice. Trying to find cooling agents or processes may be as much a waste of time as trying to find Trenberth’s missing heat.
(Note how this lack of warming won’t deter the warmer’s enthusiasm one bit–sorta like Nancy Pelosi’s plans for a grand party celebrating… celebrating… I’ll let Nancy answer that one, for the reason eludes me.)
Do you think it is merely a coincidence that the warming stopped at the same time that sceptics started looking at the data?
It seems to me that the thumb was on the scale the entire time and that is why they will not release the original data that they use to create their temperature records.
“The Devil is in the details”. Then, as long as we look at the details we will see, (As Briffa) a single tree and not the forest as a whole. That is called by ophthalmologists “nearsightedness” .
We are used, overused and tired, of hearing : “….it was caused by a low pressure front”. Our questioning minds however, do not obey courtesy laws, and ask, following Socrates “maieutics”(derived from the Greek “μαιευτικός”, pertaining to midwifery.)…”.but what did it cause that low pressure?”, and so, on and on.
What we need NOW is real, actual causations, and not “tranquilizing pills” or “Brave New World” ‘ s “Soma”.
There are already people who speak about causations, but these theories/approaches are not well received as “disgusting” or rather “offensive” to established dogmas or “settled science”.
We prefer to be heretical, doubtful, followers of doubt as a method, only driven by our inner gut’s feelings and seeking general laws beaconing from the lighthouse of truth.
Then, what is it really behind climate?
What 10-15 year standstill?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2009-lo-rez.pdf
So are we to believe that the accumulated data from 160 research bodies, in 48 countries, using state of the art field measurements are incorrect in their assessment that…”Global average surface and lower-troposphere temperatures
during the last three decades have been progressively
warmer than all earlier decades, and the 2000s
(2000–09) was the warmest decade in the instrumental
record.”?
All on the strength of an unreferenced statement (posted here anyway) from a UK ‘think tank’.
Gaia is preventing us from destroying her. 🙂
‘Scientifically Suspicious’ – what a kind man David Whitehouse must be.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that is sadly lacking, at least sadly for the catastrophists.
Northern extratropics give good enough trend, not disturbed by ENSO events.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_30-90N_n_1990:2011a.png
Present times (warmest year ever) are on the level of 1990 and accelerating downhill. According to the models, NH should be already warmer by 0.5-1 °C. All this per IPCC own global record HadCRUT.
These AGW people postulate that the decrease c02 radiance forcing has mirrored the increase solar radiance for the past 4 billion years. That is utter nonsense, unless there is an underlying mechanism for this to happen.
“This means that for 10-15 years the combined effect of all the Earth’s climate variability factors have increased in such a way as to exactly compensate for the rise in temperature that the increased CO2 would have given us.”
So maybe, just maybe, when the “climate scientists” fully understand “all the Earth’s climate variability factors”, and the GCMs be modified to include those “climate variability factors” then the “truth” will be known.
To admit that there are “climate variability factors” seems to open the door a crack. It seems to be an admission that their is still a lot of uncertainty or unknowns in what drives the Earth’s climate.
So isn’t it just too early to advocate any action by humans?
Theodore says:
November 9, 2010 at 11:02 am
“Do you think it is merely a coincidence that the warming stopped at the same time that sceptics started looking at the data?”
A very good observation.
He assumes AGW is a fact and that natural factors have prevented the warming.
The possibility that the warming was natural (caused by positive PDO and AMO) doesn’t seem to be on the cards. As our oceans begin their negative, colder cycle it seems likely that temperatures will follow. Should make an interesting follow up to this essay.
Theodore said: “Do you think it is merely a coincidence that the warming stopped at the same time that sceptics started looking at the data?”
Holy cow! I never thought of that before. This is a fantastic example of the Observer Effect. LOL!
I agree that the cease of the warming trend looks very bad for AGW, and I think sooner or later it will be fatal. Buti also think you overstate the case somewhat.
It is true that this year looks set to hit the average for the past decade. But of course it is nonsense to infer from that that the temperature has been a “flat line”. It hasn’t, it has varied up and down.
If the temperature has not been constant then of course there is no reason to suppose that cooling factors have been a “mirror Image” of warming; the best we can say is that there is too much variability to say.
Apologies for typos – I am posting from my phone, outside on an English evening and it is jolly cold! A sign of things to come?
M White
I think Dr Whitehouse is by being charitable and sympathetic to the AGW stance he is showing the logical absurdity of the situation. he’s showing that it does not hang together. Logically it is the initial assumption that must be faulty – the IPCC’s assumption that the world would warm by 0.2 deg C in the past decade and that greenhouse gasses would be the primary cause.
I agree that the article has a devastating logic, and a devastating wit as well.
@Tim Williams (November 9, 2010 at 11:07 am):
This 10-15 year standstill !!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
So, which is it? Has the warming been level for the past decade, or are we still warming and are now “the warmest ever”? My apologies if I’m missing the obvious.
It’s both. Temperatures warmed from 1979 – 1998 and have been flat since.
The Medieval Warm period was at its height a thousand years back. It was as warm as today (or warmer), but that was followed by the Little Ice Age, which only ended around 1840. Since then, we have “recovered” to Medieval (or near-Medieval) levels.
So, yes, it is warmer than it has been in a millennium (thank goodness), and yes, the temperatures have been flat for the last 12 – 15 years.