I received a number of emails about the newly published Guemas et al (2013) paper titled “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade”. It’s paywalled. The abstract is here. It reads:
Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now. Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions. Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.
Not too surprisingly ClimateProgress has a post New Study: When You Account For The Oceans, Global Warming Continues Apace about the paper.
The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005.
Figure 1
###########
Figure 2
The abstract also mentions a new-found ability to predict slowdowns in warming. But the warming of tropical Pacific ocean heat content is dependent on the 3-year La Niña events of 1954-57, 1973-76 and 1998-01 and on the freakish 1995/96 La Niña, Figure 3. And the warming of sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans, Figure 4, depends on strong El Niño events.
Figure 3
###########
Figure 4
CLOSING
Can Guemas et al (2013) can predict 3-year La Niñas and freakish La Niñas like the one in 1995/96? Can they predict strong El Niño events, like those in 1986/87/88, 1997/97 1997/98 and 2009/10? Both are unlikely—the specialized ENSO forecast models have difficulty projecting beyond the springtime predictability barrier every year.
FURTHER READING
For further information about the problems with ocean heat content data, refer to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?
And for further information about the natural warming of the global oceans, see “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.




If they can predict El Niño events, the obvious test is: when will the next one begin?
“The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.”
Translation: Send money.
To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum, the stratospheric water vapour, the stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols.
————————————
Nope, giant crabs.
“Predict retrospectively” –
The ability to make predictions after the events have occurred shows how cutting edge climatology is. 😉
“The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.”
A prediction is normally before not after an event. A model that is physically incorrect can be tuned to match the past. It appears the only observation that will stop the retort: “the heat is hiding in the ocean”, is planetary cooling.
Colour me confused.
They state:
From Wiki:
and
The final quote:
ok I’ll bite…retrospective prediction? If that doesn’t burn the eyes nothing will…
Have they ever heard of out of sample prediction??
Are they suggesting that the melting polar ice caps are adding to the heat capacity of the oceans?
“Retrospective prediction”??? A talent for predicting the past?
Amazing how retrospective adjusting of situations they never predicted in the first place is considered prediction skill by the Romm and Co….
A “retrospective prediction” must take the prize for the world’s greatest oxymoron.
I can retrospectively predict that the stock market will crash in 1929.
Thank goodness. I thought we might be heading into the next ice age.
They could use the same algorithm to predict the winner of the 2009 World Series.
Here are the datasets they claim to be using. Then they modify the heck out of them (parentheticals are their cite numbers from the paper itself):
SST: the NOAA Extended Reconstructed SST v3b data set (24) (named ERSST); sea-ice concentration: the NSIDC (ref. 25; updated to 2008) and the HadISST v1.1 data sets (26)
(named HadISST); TOA radiative fluxes: the CERES EBAF-TOA Ed2.6r data set (27) (named CERES); OHC: the ORAS4 (refs 15,16), the GLORYS2v1 (ref. 28) and the Ishii and
Kimoto (29) reanalyses.
I hope somebody is still listening to these jokers when they come up with an explanation as to why the ocean would suddenly decide to start sucking up heat and what the mechanism is for it to turn it on and off. They’ve gone from one myth to another without explaining either. Someone in government should challenge their grant application.
I hereby retroactively predict that the entire civilized world will go completely nuts over climate predictions that never had a sound scientific basis and never came to pass. And then, that the “never came to pass” predictions were “retroactively predicted”.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that I have successfully retroactively predicted every major event since the beginning of recorded history. I await my celebratory parade.
They like 20/20 hindsight, it makes their models unbeatable.
(I get the feeling, they’re hoping the general public won’t know what “retrospective” means.)
Ah, to heck with it – is it time for drinkies yet???
I’m underwhelmed by sophomoric claims of retroactively being able to have known something that happened but wasn’t predicted beforehand. Predictive skill of this procedure? Zero. Nada. Zip. Nichts. Niechevo. Science? Considerably less than the predictive skill.
Their models got it wrong. They add in a new variable, and say that now their models would have got it right.
And they have the nerve to say this *increases* their confidence in the robustness of their models?
Even Pravda wouldn’t have attempted to get away with this kind of wholesale revisionism and air-brushing of history.
“Vaticinium ex eventu…..”
That sums up most predictions from Natural Climate Change Deniers.
So if the increase in ocean heat retention in the last 15 years is the cause of the recent cooling (or flatlining), does that mean that the previous warming was caused by the oceans liberating their heat content and thus not a result of anthropogenic CO2?
This is awesome… they claim the ability to predict the past, and STILL manage to get it wrong!
Retrospective prediction?
Same as having the ability to predict lottery numbers after the drawn has taken place.
Another example of retrospective prediction modeling is that Margaret Thatcher will die on 8 April 2013.
In retrospect how do you predict something retrospectively?
Everyone here has picked up the obvious “blooper” –predict retrospectively. How did this get past peer review ? I thought this sort of thing was exactly what peere review was meant to pick up.
( ie. we can argue about technical issues etc but this is basic language in my book
retrospective forecast is an oxymoron. similar to army intelligence and climate science.