In the much ballyhooed 2008 NOAA “State of the Climate” report on climate change they state, concerning the climate models, something quite relevant to the issues raised by the new story in the UK Daily Mail:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said in 2009:
“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming.”
(h/t to Tom Harris)
Or how about this:
Climategate’s Phil Jones ‘insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said’ in 2012
‘Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
‘In other words, though 5 years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years’ h/t to Climate Change Dispatch.
Regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post:
There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.
Yet, today, we see evidence of the goalposts being moved again as the met Office tries to paint this lack of warming “plateau” as being insignificant:
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.
So we are at 16 years, soon to be 17 years. What happens when we hit 20 years?
Either the models are worth something or they aren’t. In this case it seems they aren’t.
See also:
The Mail On Sunday And The Met Office
by: Dr. David Whitehouse
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Science, theories make predictions.
In Science, theories are tested against their predictions.
When the predictions FAIL, theories are normally revised, re-evaluated, reconsidered, re-examined, recalculated, or just plain re-jected.
The only forces keeping the AGW alarmism theory from being abandoned are those of political correctness.
Hoisted by their own petard! Their intellectual dishonesty is self evident. These are nothing but small time crooks cheating taxpayers out of funds that should have gone to more worthy research.
Reminds me of the immortal Mel Brooks
See Blazing Saddles – We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen!
Can I get a harrumph?
I was wondering when someone would remind them of their past proclamations about this timeline.
Where’s David Appell? 🙂
Quoting Phil Jones
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Given that he insists that warming is going to be catastrophic, one would think he would be elated to find out he is wrong rather than worried.
Climategate quote from Phil Jones.
‘I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till 2020
Like David M Hoffer says above, it seems that the Warmists are deeply worried sick that there might be no warming.
For a short while it looked like the Northern Hemisphere was seriously
over-heating, then I realised it was not just autumnal leaves, but many
red faces!
When the fuss of the past few years is considered, the vilification of those
labelled sceptics and the scorn heaped upon them, I find this report
highly amusing, but “not unexpected.” There will be no acknowledgements
of error nor any apologies forthcoming …
It’s right out of Charles MacKay’s book.
DavidMHoffer
Yes one would think that being wrong about (alleged) catastrophe to the entire human race should be a cause for celebration not reason to be “worried”….. unless one cares only about promoting Alarmism and/or protecting one’s pet theory and/or one’s sorry reputation. What’s wrong with these climatologists? We’ve been assured so many times that only “out of context” do these emails look bad, but so many seem really worse the more one knows the context.
Re; GlynnMhor observation.
It seems in the case of the global warming meme, the theory is KEPT and the the collected empirical data is selectively revised, reevaluated, reconsidered, reexamined, adjusted or just plain rejected.
Climate models are unable to make predictions in any scientifically valid sense of that word. The entire controversy about 10, 15, 17, or 20 years of temperature stasis then requires a context persistently blind to that fact.
Some waited for ten years to pass before becoming skeptical of the model. Others hung on, insisting, at least a half climate period (15yrs), before becoming skeptical of the model. So another wave of converts can be expected to appear. Soon it may be hard to find anybody who will admit to being hoodwinked. GK
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Implying the models model known climate variations such as ENSO, which is false. The models may attempt to model these natural variations but fail even over short timescales (<1 year). To claim they can model these natural variations over decades is deceptive nonsense.
In reality, the models produce random noise of approximately the same magnitude as natural variations.
Gawd, those bozos have a hard time letting go of their pet doctrine, eh?
RealClimate is way ahead of you. They had a guest post a few years ago saying that 20years or more of now warming is possible but then global warming would reassert itself stronger than ever.
Oh, now I get it. It’s Yogi Climate Science!
“I didn’t really say everthing I said.”
“The future ain’t what it used to be ”
“We made too many wrong mistakes.”
DR says:
“Where’s David Appell?”
He’s been recalled to the mother ship.☺
O/T but the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is just below the 2007 extent now. Catching up fast
You’d think they’d all be happy that ‘global warming’ has stopped -all by itself, naturally, without the need to pour in countless more trillions of dollars into a non-problem so that we could use that money to do something useful instead? wouldn’t you?
How scary would it be if the data had been “juiced” and still shows no warming?
Being a denialist (in the catastrophic sense of AGW) and a big fan of WUWT, I have to express my confusion at this 16 year bug-a-boo. I downloaded the HadCrut3 temperature anomaly data and only if you use the extremely warm El Nino in 1997-1998 can you make this claim. If you take any time before mid 1997 there is a positive temperature anomaly. If you chose mid 1992, for example, the anomaly is 0.25 over 20 years. The temperature is up about 0.1 deg C from mid 2000. So I’m confused. For a 16 year anomaly we need to wait until 2017-2018, no?
Between 97 and 2007, regular official statement was: if all countries don’t sign the Kyoto protocol; catastrophe cannot be avoided. Since then, CO2 emission increased beyond anybody’s expectation.
The only reason the leading Warmist don’t start spiting the dummy is: because the Skeptics don’t have any honesty, to admit that:: they have being duped by the Warmist / and by the outdated pagan beliefs / fairy-tales that: localized warmings / coolings are GLOBAL. Skeptic’s misplaced ego is giving oxygen to the Warmist.
TRUTH: there was no ”GLOBAL” warming in the 90’s, the warming is NOT ”flattening” now.- extra warming in the troposphere overall is not accumulative – since 1849 not enough extra heat in the troposphere has accumulated, to boil one chicken egg!!! 2] nobody monitors the GLOBAL temp, b] the data from few selective places doesn’t represent the GLOBAL temp and the Warmist don’t have a case. c] not monitoring for every minute in 24h, is misleading. d] hottest minute is NOT at the same time every day – everyone of the other 1439 minutes in 24h have same value; but temp doesn’t go simultaneously up, or down as the hottest minute. Ignoring my proofs. facts and formulas by both camps; makes both sides of the sandpit equally guilty!!! .http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
The other alarmists are learning something that repeat offenders like Hansen and Paul Ehrlich learnt long ago — never predict that anything will occur before you’re safely retired and they can’t take the money away.
stefanthedenier,
What is the temperature on your planet?
“WHERE’S THE HEAT!”. LOL! Remember that old Wendy’s commercial?
The Warmunistas are quickly reaching that critical point in their theory/model projections, where there is a whole lot of fluffy bun, but no beef…
The Warmunistas also facing some major climatic events working against them: PDO and SOI already negative, AMO peaked in 2011 and starts its slow 45-year decline from here, the 2013 El Nino event ain’t happening and could even become a La Nina in 2013, the weak current solar cycle peaks around June 2013 and then starts a slow decline to be followed by the weakest solar cycle since 1715, Antarctic growing in both size AND mass, sea rising slowing…. Oh, my….
Where IS the beef?….