Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that "global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008" – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)

click to enlarge

The Kaufmann et al 2011 paper (Note: Michael L. Mann is a co-author, not the same as Michael E. Mann of hockey team fame) was embargoed until 8PM GMT (12PM PDT) today, and we have an advance copy thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser .

Here is the PDF file: pnas.201102467

The headline from the abstract:

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

But in the conclusion:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

From the GWPF:

Comments by Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008.

It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.

Dr David Whitehouse

The Global Warming Policy Foundation

e-mail: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org

=============================================================

My take on it from the paper – “We don’t know what’s going on, but we aren’t going to admit that” – Anthony

============================================================

From Ryan Maue:  Mainstream media coverage example headline:

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study — from Reuters

blah blah blah — and the conclusion quotation:  “Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain’s Met Office.

Well, hells bells.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

185 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Jankowski
July 4, 2011 12:08 pm

Any journal publication (and even many press releases and news articles) that doesn’t fit into the usual scaremongering seems to have a disclaimer that notes man-made global warming (or climate change) is real and happening. It is like it’s a requirement for publication. “Ok, you are allowed to present your findings, but we need you to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”

George E. Smith
July 4, 2011 12:08 pm

Well as I have said many times, some of the highest altitudes on planet earth occur up in the mountains. It is supposed to have something to do with a maximum being a preponderance of higher values; whereas a minimum, is more often accompanied by a preponderance of lower values.
So it is to be expected that the “warmest decade” on record, would have some of the highest temperatures.

CoRev
July 4, 2011 12:11 pm

UH OH, when the AGW super stars start admitting no increase, we know it must be really bad.

Latitude
July 4, 2011 12:14 pm

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result.
=============================================
But anything that does not show sea levels rising, temperatures increasing, etc
is unexpected and obviously wrong…..
So the excepted way of correcting it, is to make it match the computer models.
That’s what they did with satellite sea levels………

Bystander
July 4, 2011 12:14 pm

‘It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998.”
That is not what the paper says. The paper has a cut off date of 2008, it is not commenting on tempatures since then and given that it is 2011 the 2008 cut-off is out of date.

Bystander
July 4, 2011 12:15 pm

“As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.”
In the front summary of the paper.

Ed Scott
July 4, 2011 12:18 pm

RayStevens – The Global Warming Song

Sean Peake
July 4, 2011 12:20 pm

I see another double-down coming: the world is cooling because of the burning of fossil fuels and to stop it, we must restrict their use and tax accordingly.

David L. Hagen
July 4, 2011 12:21 pm

In summary: Anthropogenic cooling counters anthropogenic warming.

“anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role.”
“In-sample simulations indicate that temperature does not rise between the 1940’s and 1970’s
because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions rise slightly faster than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.”

Now if we could just explain how the Little Ice Age countered the Medieval Warm Period . . . we might get more universal consensus on climate.
Robert (Bob) Carter provides clues in: Climate: The Counter Consensus
and his Dec. 2010 lecture and presentation.

JohnH
July 4, 2011 12:26 pm

How can they keep a straight face writing this garbage !!!!!

Josh Tay
July 4, 2011 12:30 pm

Hit the nail on the head once again. Accurate, restrained, polite. Well done Dr Whitehouse.

John Baglien
July 4, 2011 12:31 pm

The statement from Kaufman et al 2011 (p 1 of 4): “The hypothesis that the post 1998 period is consistent with the existing understanding of anthropogenic climate change is evaluated with a test statistic that evaluates the null hypothesis that the long-run relationship between global surface temperature and radiative forcing is unchanged after 1998.” turns statistics and logic on its head. The “long-run relationship between global surface temperature and radiative forcing” as modeled is the hypothesis. Basically they are saying: “we can’t say with 95% confidence that our models are wrong” rather than demonstrating with 95% confidence that their hypothesized models are correct. John Baglien

Mike
July 4, 2011 12:35 pm

“Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface
temperature.”
You are taking paper that explains why you are wrong and then just asserting it says you are right. Orwell had a name for this.

Scott Brim
July 4, 2011 12:39 pm

Anyone taking the mainstream media’s reporting over the last decade as gospel would believe that each year of the previous decade has been warmer than the last; and that the trend is sharply upward. So I am surprised to see this paper being published at all, given that these same climate scientists have spent years strongly pushing the message that temperatures remain on a sharply upward curve.
Given that the climate models which predict global warming based upon increasing GHGs are constructed of layer upon layer of interlocking assumptions — assumptions which are still held to be true by climate scientists regardless of the acknowledged existence of this decade-length span of contradictory temperature data — then it is no wonder that the authors can’t embrace the most logically-considered explanation: the atmosphere’s actual CO2 sensitivity isn’t what climate scientists claim that it is.

phlogiston
July 4, 2011 12:44 pm

If as they state there is an “increase in the warming effect” of “rising greenhouse gas” then the predicted effect is quadratic warming. On these terms then even sustained linear increase (which is not happening) would represent a falling away from predicted warming. However this extravagent claim is probably more sloppy language than a considered statement..
What also emerges from this is a convenient flexible device to explain any climate change and blame it on humans. Is there warming? Its caused by CO2. Cooling? It can only be smokestack particles.
This is the classic “good God, bad God” religious formula by which politically connected prophets of doom have terrified and controlled the populous for millenia of human history.
Nice work if you can get it.

chris y
July 4, 2011 12:46 pm

New climate science paper is released.
M. Mann is a co-author.
Null hypothesis- Any climate paper co-authored by M. Mann is garbage.
Hypothesis- this is a scientific paper with merit.
Conclusion based on details already in evidence- hypothesis has been falsified.
next.

timetochooseagain
July 4, 2011 12:49 pm

“The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).””
In point of fact, the statement, which references the IPCC, is predicated on the assumption that climate models contained realistic internal variability. But the failure of models to be able to predict such a hiatus ahead of time shows that this assumption was wrong. To just assert that it is not a contradiction is to say something as ridiculous, basically, that climate is allowed to be cooled by natural variability but not warmed. Which is evidently what these people believe.

July 4, 2011 12:50 pm

I was going to make a lame joke about the ever-increasing number of epicycles, then I realized the analogy doesn’t work. The Ptolemaic system wasn’t wrong, it was just vastly less elegant than the Galilean system. You can still choose the Earth as the center of the solar system if you’re willing to do a lot of unnecessary math.
The CO2 system is wrong. Disproved. Falsified. This is an EX-science. No amount of math will make it right.

rbateman
July 4, 2011 12:59 pm

Thier model works only if all CO2 is manmade, which it is not, and CO2 greenhouse warming is linear, which it is not, and no other forces that are acting upon the planet have any consequece, which is growing stupider than previously factored.

July 4, 2011 1:00 pm

David Whitehouse
They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.
And what would that ‘influence’ be? And how could they [or would you] use that?

Ian Forrester
July 4, 2011 1:07 pm

CoRev said:
“UH OH, when the AGW super stars start admitting no increase, we know it must be really bad.”
Just which “super stars” are you referring to? I’m afraid that it seems that you people are confusing 2 completely different “Michael Manns”.
I’m afraid the jokes on you.

Les Johnson
July 4, 2011 1:10 pm

I note that Kaufman et al state that it warmed in 2009 and 2010, but give no figure, nor even cite the source of this apparent warming.
Of course, the advantage is that it can’t be falsified.

TRM
July 4, 2011 1:10 pm

“Sean Peake says: July 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I see another double-down coming: the world is cooling because of the burning of fossil fuels and to stop it, we must restrict their use and tax accordingly. ”
Back to the 1970s for those of us old enough to remember it 🙂

pat
July 4, 2011 1:14 pm

And we could throw in 2008-2011 just for laughs.
The Warmists have a very difficult time maintaining the hypothesis of an ever increasing global temperature. Obfuscation of data will not be tolerated by every scientist regardless of their political bent or greed. The two predominate explanations for the missing incline in temperature are oceanic storage and the posit that a natural cycle is masquerading the heat. The problem with both is that these explanations were not incorporated into the models. So their Models are simply wrong. Wrong as in worthless.

July 4, 2011 1:15 pm

Ian Forrester says:
July 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I’m afraid the jokes on you.
Ha ha ha. Poor Michael L. Mann must rotate being mistaken for Michael E. Mann [hockey-mike]

1 2 3 8
Verified by MonsterInsights