OVERVIEW
This post illustrates what many people envision after reading scientific papers about the predicted multidecadal persistence of the hiatus period—papers like Li et al. (2013) and Wyatt and Curry (2013). See my blog post Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade.
NOTE: In addition to the above papers, see Pierre Gosselin’s post Explosive: Max Planck Institute Initial Forecast Shows 0.5°C Cooling Of North Atlantic SST By 2016!
INTRODUCTION
I published a quick post introducing Li et al (2013), Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade. The cross post at WattsUpWithThat is here. My Figures 1 and 2 are Figures 3 and 4b from Li et al. (2013). Their Figure 3 shows a multidecadal component from Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures and a relatively low warming rate in a residual—a warming rate that excludes the higher rate imposed by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since the mid-1970s. Their Figure 4b shows the Li et al. (2013) predicted cooling of Northern Hemisphere temperatures through 2027.
Figure 1
###
Figure 2
Earlier, I clearly showed in the blog post IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide that climate models can’t simulate the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans from 1880 to present, when the temperature record is broken down into four multidecadal warming and cooling (less warming) periods. The oceans cover 70% of the planet. If modelers can’t simulate sea surface temperatures, they can’t simulate global temperatures.
Von Storch, et al. (2013) stated in “Can Climate Models Explain the Recent Stagnation in Global Warming?”:
However, for the 15-year trend interval corresponding to the latest observation period 1998-2012, only 2% of the 62 CMIP5 and less than 1% of the 189 CMIP3 trend computations are as low as or lower than the observed trend.
Clearly, if 98% of the current generation of models (CMIP5), and 99% of the earlier generation of models (CMIP3), do not simulate the current hiatus period of 15 years, it’s highly unlikely they model multidecadal hiatus periods lasting 3 decades.
Additionally, in the post Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming, under the heading of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, I illustrated that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is not a forced component of climate models.
WHAT MOST PEOPLE ENVISION WHEN THEY READ PAPERS ABOUT MULTIDECADAL VARIABILITY AND THE PREDICTED PERSISTENCE OF THE HALT IN GLOBAL WARMING
Li et al. (2013) predicted Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures will cool slightly until 2027. They used HADCRUT4 data. I’ve used the same dataset in Figure 3, starting in January 1916 and running to the more current month of July 2013. Figure 3 also shows the multi-model ensemble mean of the simulations of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures from January 1916 through December 2027. The models are the CMIP5 generation, used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. (Both data and model outputs are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.) The data and model outputs have been smoothed with 121-month running-average filters. For the data-based projection, I simply spliced the smoothed data starting in January 1945 to the end of the current smoothed data.
Figure 3
If Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures cool through 2027 (at the same rate they had starting in 1945), the divergence between models and data will continue to grow. The reason: the modelers simply extended forward in time the high warming rate from their simulations of the late warming period. That clearly shows that the modelers did NOT consider the known multidecadal variations in surface temperatures in their projections.
Something else to consider: Li et al (2013) did not state the cessation of warming would end in 2027. Their model is only valid for 16 years into the future. After the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) switches again at some time in the future, using the Li et al (2013) model, they would then be able to predict an end to the multidecadal Northern Hemisphere cooling—and it would occur16 years after that NAO switch.
WILL THE IPCC’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS MULTIDECADAL VARIABILITY WILL BE THEIR DOWNFALL?
Let’s take this another step: Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
CLOSING
It’s very obvious that climate modelers, under the direction of the IPCC, simply tuned their models to the high rate of warming from one half of a multidecadal “cycle” without considering the other counterbalancing or offsetting portion of the “cycle”. The IPCC’s position has been and continues to be that the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century was caused primarily by manmade greenhouse gases—a position that has always been unsupportable because climate models do not properly simulate multidecadal variability. The evidence of the model failings become more pronounced with every passing month of the halt in global warming.
I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled. Apologies for the semantics but we need to be accurate in what we are describing.
“I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling.” A rather disengnious statement as the climate only needs to balance out to demonstrate that the globe has stopped warming and the CAGW hoax is once again exposed. Everyone on this planet is aware that everything from daily life to Planet rotation and seasons are cyclic, Everything has a cycle and yet all those, all knowing specialists, refuse to accept that the weather behaves in that fashion as well. It’s back to the drawing board for them all, to begin again.
Gareth Phillips, Your semantics are misleading and you are not being accurate at all, on the contrary. It is so simple. Warming means that something is getting warmer. If it stays the same temperature (cold or warm has only relative meaning) is has CEASED to warm any further.
The crux, I believe, is the world-wide urbanization from late 60s to 90s.
For instance, a normal car is, while driving, equivalent to a 30-kW giant heater.
A simple calculation, based on the number of running cars and the heat capacity of air (20.8 J/mol/K), gives a temp rise of 2-3 degC for the air mass up to the height of ca. 1 km in the metropolitan area of Tokyo.
Around the year 2000 urbanization tended to saturate in many big- and medium-sized cities in the world, and hence the readings of surface-based thermometers stopped rising.
Another paper preaching to the choir. The warmists, the Royal Society, the American
Physical Society, the WMO, AGU, etc. are not listening or taking part in SCIENTIFIC discussions. Who is going to bell the cat?
Well Gareth I don’t think anyone will disagree with what you say – although 20 years ago those who used a 10 pence (UK) piece of graph paper, due to lack of an available supercomputer, and hand-sketched a continuation of the pre-existing MDO were very close to where we are now. And certainly a whole ballpark nearer than any of the models.
On top of that, while global temps remain stagnated – many parts of the northern hemisphere have seen cooling and bitter winters (we all know weather is not climate). The Central England Temperature (CET) has been going southwards for a decade now. I was talking to a farmer recently in the English Midlands who told me the growing season has slipped about 3 weeks since the millennium.
The alarmists simply mistook the upside of the MDO that occurred through the 90’s as an acceleration of warming, which it wasn’t, since it was at the same rate of warming as the 19th century upside (0.16c per decade). Their misapprehension was aided by the cooling of the Pinatubo event and the the super El Nino in the late 90’s. The recovery was steeper than the overall trend.
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled. Apologies for the semantics but we need to be accurate in what we are describing.
____________________________________________________________________________
I’m not sure why the cessation of global warming has to be global cooling. It could as well be relatively flat temperatures. The kettle is put on a warmer and the energy is balanced.
Most accurate tracker of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can be obtained from interaction the Earth’s magnetic field with the 22 year solar Hale cycle
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
The downturn in the solar activity will inevitably mean decline in the NA SST.
Tony Brown’s work is relevant here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
Tony’s comment in a current discussion on Lorenz at Judy Curry’s is:
“We are affected by even short periods of change, be they annual or decadal. We seem to have got hung up on 30 year and century long periods of climate change and read all sorts of meanings into them. They in turn need to be put into context with the much broader picture which does tell us something which is that our overall climate is hugely variable and does not conform to the notion of a static climate until 1880 or so that has become the norm.”
(hope you don’t mind, Tony, was not sure if/when you would see this).
At the risk of irritating Bob Tisdale yet again, HadCRUT4 is NOT a “dataset”; rather, it is an “adjusted” temperature anomaly record. The work Anthony and others have done suggests that up to half of that anomaly might exist only in the adjustments and not in the underlying data.
The TEAM refers to these temperature anomaly records as “datasets” in an effort to suggest that they are real data. We adopt their sloppy redefinition of data at our peril.
johanna:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 4:34 am.
With respect to both you and tonyb, in my opinion it does not matter if he objects to your quoting and citing his work because his work is so good and so important that it needs to be quoted and cited often.
Richard
The hypothesis that there are multi-decade ocean cycles that have a well defined time period and magnitude is one that has yet to be confirmed by objective data. li et al certainly failed to confirm that the AMO they are referencing has a ~60 year period or a predictable amplitude. You can not derive a cycle from less than two peaks of its supposed period.
What limited cycles that are detectable show a consistent pattern. The shorter the cycle the greater the climate variation, the longer it is the smaller the observable anomaly. The ENSO cycle is inherently unpredictable in frequency and magnitude, but causes the largest variations within a few years or less. The Longer cycles that have been proposed, but rarely confirmed, all have much smaller ranges of variation.
There is no paleoclimate evidence that these purported cycles are anything other than energy neutral over a few years.
In fact for any supposed cycles of several decades it is necessary to rely on the same paleoclimate evidence that shows that recent warming is exceptional in the last 8000 years and confirms that these assumed ‘cycles’ are climate neutral in their purported effect over that period and have not caused any similar excursions in the past.
The ipcc models, not being based on reality can only predict warming. The Global Warming Halt of now nearly 17 years has effectively broken the models already, which is why they are grasping at straws like “hidden heat”. For now, multidecadal variations can certainly take the credit for the ipcc’s downfall. In the future, though, more credit may be given to the sun.
Chris Schoneveld says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:05 am
Gareth Phillips, Your semantics are misleading and you are not being accurate at all, on the contrary. It is so simple. Warming means that something is getting warmer. If it stays the same temperature (cold or warm has only relative meaning) is has CEASED to warm any further.
I agree Chris, like most things, it is semantics, but I do not intend to mislead. Imagine a car speeding up to 70 miles an hour on the M1 pushed by a powerful motor. Now if the motor stops and the car is free wheeling for a for while at 70 miles and hour, is it still speeding, although it is no longer being powered? The temps may not be rising at the previous rates, but make no mistake, they remain raised and we do not know whether they will fall back or whether the previous rate of increase will resume. Like the car, they may wind down or the engine may kick back in, but the car has certainly not stopped as yet.
– – – – – – – –
Bob Tisdale,
Another great set-up for stimulating discussion. Thank you once again.
The IPCC is a locus for model discussion, certainly. And they are not appearing rational in handling their failed model approaches. You have shown that.
If one can answer whether the IPCC will fall by failed models then I think one needs go to look at other loci of climate discussion. Let’s pick one => the upcoming 2013 Annual AGU Fall meeting in San Francisco in Dec.
Go to the AGU Meeting webpage, non-members can browse around to some extent. I see little evidence of diminished emphasis on the IPCC centric model approach when compared to previous fall meetings.
But, what I do see as different is a growing frantic undercurrent about US Federal Government’s significant sequestration of research funds. Models may be singled out as the lowest kind of priority to fund.
I suggest, to answer your question, to look at other scientific academies, institutes, societies and associations. Are they finally trying to correct the IPCC’s science?
My understanding of cultural change is the IPCC cannot fall except by the hands of those academies, institutes, societies and associations. And further, they will change only through a skeptical dominance of their members.
Bob, your work is laying important groundwork. Lots of work left to do
John
It’s not that they failed to model the PDO and AMO – it’s that they didn’t think them important. Natural processes that were “noise”.
Gareth Phillips says:
You make the assumption that normal is less warm than present. Since most of the Holocene was as warm or warmer than present, and we clearly had a cold period about 1300 to 1850, why do you assume the present is unusual rather than just a recovery from the LIA back to normal? The fact is that either the warming was a recovery from whatever caused the LIA, or if there is AGW, it is relatively small and is sitting on top of a larger natural variation that dominates the climate. Either case argues against their being a CAGW.
The AGW movement is in a similar place to 1st Century Christians. They were told Jesus was returning right away, that those living would see Him return in an Apocalypse. The Church grew out of that, to explain why He did not return as previously promised.
AGW true believers have to develop a way to at once continue their moral pose regarding “decarbonization” and still explain away the fact that their predictions are useless, their facts tainted or worse, and their remedies don’t do more than make AGW insiders wealthy.
Gareth Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 5:21 am you continue your disingenuous semantics when you write
NO! Global warming has stopped.
Your assertion that “temps may not be rising at the previous rates” is a false statement of lack of confidence.
There has been no discernible change in global temperature (at 95% confidence) for at least the last 17 years according all data sets (RSS says the last 22 years). But there was discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for the previous 17 years according all data sets.
Discernible global warming has stopped.
A change in global temperature is certain to occur in future. But it is not known if that change will be a resumption of warming towards the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the initiation of cooling towards the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.
Richard
It is yet another cold day for the believers in CAGW, as the natural swings of nature takes its inevitable course, the number of skeptics will be passed the tipping point, and the doom-mongers will be consigned to an embarrassment of history.
I don’t want get into the usual slanging match with you Richard so I won’t use any bold type or block capitals. You are correct that the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop, but we remain at that temperature, there is a difference in these two statements. The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records. Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance. Certainty bounding on zealtotry is the bane of climate science on all sides. I believe we are seeing a hiatus, it’s anybodies guess as to where it will go from here.
Correction, that should be Zealotry in my last post, cursed MacBook auto corrects!
LearDog says: “It’s not that they failed to model the PDO and AMO – it’s that they didn’t think them important. Natural processes that were ‘noise’.”
Additionally, LearDog, the models can’t simulate naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, because they are unforced components of Earth’s actual climate.
SSTs are the best metric for global climate. There has been no net warming since 1997 and the earth entered a cooling trend in about 2003 ( See Fig 7 at the latest post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com ) which will likely last for 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that.
Check the basic data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The link to my site also provides a forecast for the timing and extent of the coming cooling.
@gareth, The fact that the warming has stopped the past 17 years is in no way incongruent with the fact that temps remain (so far) at a somewhat elevated level. Either you are being disingenuous, or are incredibly dense not to see that. Furthermore, the fact that warming has stopped does not in any way make a claim as to what direction future temperatures will take. Calling it a “hiatus” or “pause”, on the other hand, implies future warming. Semantics indeed.
Aaargh! @gareth Phillips when, at October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am he says:
“I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled. Apologies for the semantics but we need to be accurate in what we are describing.
The warming has stopped, at least when measured by the same data sets that showed warming.
We all seem to agree that what will happen next (other than continued statistically similar levels) is either more warming or some cooling. It seems we all also recognize that we don’t know what the “normal” global temperature should be, making it difficult to state whether we really are in either a relatively cool or warm scenario.
BTW – doesn’t a kettle immediately begin to cool when taken off the stove? For sure, it does not get warmer.
Could it be that even with an eye in the sky, real cloud data is inaccurate (see below)? It appears that way. If that is the case, modeled cloud effects are WAGS because the observation data is possibly compromised. Apparently sensors have a hard time knowing the difference between these ghostly apparitions. Bob can you help me make sense of this website?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/Peru/Peru_MODIS.html
http://www.stuffintheair.com/lead-us-from-darkness-to-light-from-global-warming-to-global-cooling-by-gopal-panicker.html check it out if you care…its an excerpt from an article i wrote three years ago..predicting global cooling…right on the money so far
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
———–
What Gareth Phillipps says is neither important nor honest.
Gareth Phillips: You’ve discovered that there are pros and cons to being the first to comment on a thread. Pro: Many people read the first comment. Con: Lots of people reply to the first comment.
I’m obviously with the group who side with warming “stopped”. Because it has since 2001:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/comparison-2001-start.png
Only GISS shows a little warming. Both NCDC and HADCRUT show a little cooling.
The graph is from the latest global surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/august-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/
Regards
Gareth, it takes quite a while for a pond to release heat. Now consider the oceans. If previous conditions allowed equatorial cloudless skies thus deep IR penetration, relatively speaking, the recharged oceans would take quite a long while in releasing that heat. Oceans do not turn on a dime.
We sometimes get caught up in the lack of warming and showing how long it has been. But that often hides the real situation. From a trend perspective the Earth warmed until about 2005 and has since been cooling. The cooling has cancelled out some of the previous warming which is why we have the long flat trend. But, make no mistake, the warming has stopped and we are now cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend
The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records
====
nope…..a short temporary uptic….and the overall trend is still down
Gareth, temps stopped at the one exact point where CO2 levels should have had the most effect
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Typo–delete the 2nd “WILL”
[Thank you. Mod]
“Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?”
If the foundation of the IPCC was scientifically based, my answer, based on this and all the problems with the IPCC reports, would probably be “yes”, but since the IPCC is political agenda based, the answer is “no”.
Gareth you are repeating the Alarmist mantra about the last 10 years being the warmest. When you cross a mountain peak ( about 2003) the last 5 steps up and the first 5 down will be the 10 highest. After 10 years of cooling since 2003 you can in fact say that the last 20 years were the highest in centuries and by 2023 you will say no doubt that the last 40 years were the highest.
Whether the temp is cooling or staying the same over the past 10 or 15 or 20 years the sermons from “the team” and for “the cause” were absolutely confident that it would continue to increase in both the level and rate in line with atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 continues to climb but the temp remains the same.
It seems that the only rate of increase is that of the sinking of the CAGW and the rate of growth of plants.
Bob Tisdale says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:38 am
> Gareth Phillips: You’ve discovered that there are pros and cons to being the first to comment on a thread.
Oh, I missed it. Sigh.
It seems to me that there are three possibilities:
1) it gets warmer (then we can say warming resumes)
2) it gets cooler (then we can say global cooling has returned)
3) it can stay the same (then the deniers can point out the climate really isn’t changing).
I don’t think I’d ever say there’s “a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant” in mixed company.
HUNTER at 5.33am
A valid analogy. In Biblical times people were obsessed with the possibility of the World ‘ending’, and the proposition that Jesus would return as a Messiah to save believers when it did end, turned an outlying Jewish sect into a worldwide faith.
Homo Sapiens are still heavily prone to be attracted to ‘end of the world’ theories, hence the success of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, which now has all the makings of a worldwide faith.
Whilst some followers may be persuaded to leave the ‘faith’ by the growing body of scientific evidence that a catastrophe is not on the cards, It will require a Constantinian act of will for World leaders to admit that they have been worshiping a false god and this will not IMHO happen inside a decade. Meanwhile much havoc will sadly have been wrought.
As Jeremy Clarkson would say, “I went on the internet and I found this.”
I almost spritzed my keyboard with coffee with the title, so be careful:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdales-magical-cherries.html
Looking at the content of the Sou’s post, she just doesn’t have a clue. She even admits it with her “don’t know”s. Remarkable!
In his blog, gopal panicker says:
I could not agree more.
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:55 am
I don’t want get into the usual slanging match with you Richard so I won’t use any bold type or block capitals. You are correct that the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop, but we remain at that temperature, there is a difference in these two statements. The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records. Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance.
bold mine
Who you calling “most people”, Gareth?
Leonard Weinstein did not say there is an anthropogenic factor, he said “or if there is AGW, it is relatively small and is sitting on top of a larger natural variation that dominates the climate.”
bold mine, again
Funny how you left out that little word – “if”.
I do not agree that it is a healthy stance to assume there is an anthropogenic factor within the global temperature other than to accept that it is “relatively small” and possibly not discernible with our current instrumentation.
Thanks Bob and everyone else who responded to my first post ( you are right Bob, it’s a perilous place to be!) Setting aside the hiatus or whatever you wish to call it, I suspect that as the science develops all sides are likely to draw closer together on what are the significance and implications of climate change. The IPCC may not disappear , but it will change and evolve. Hopefully the only ones who will fade away are the zealots and Mr.Angry’s on both sides. After blogging on climate change discussion zones for almost 11 years it seems to me that people are tending to agree on more and more issues, or as my ever sharp wife describes it “DAFT” ( Drawing all factors together.
Bob Tisdale,
I agree that Sou is clueless.
But why give her oxygen? She craves the traffic generated here.
Disregard Sou. She is not worthy.
th Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 5:55 am you write to me
Well, if you “don’t want get into the usual slanging match” then don’t try to pretend you are an idiot.
As I explained, discernible global warming has stopped. That is NOT the same as “the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop”.
And, of course, the present decade is higher that its predecessors when the previous decades included warming. The important point is that the present decade does not include warming because the warming has STOPPED.
This cessation of global warming is – of itself – sufficient to disprove the assertions of AGW that were promulgatred in the IPCC AR4.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
Richard
Temperature and temperature change are “discernable with our current instrumentation”. Any anthropogenic contribution to that temperature or temperature change is not amenable to instrumental measurement.
Sorry, in my previous post ‘Gareth Phillips’ became truncated to ‘th Phillips’ for some reason.
I apologise for this. It was inadvertent and not intended as an insult.
Richard
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably..”
(Tom Nelson, Climategate files)
Tar and feather would do.
@ John Who @gareth Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance.
bold mine
Who you calling “most people”, Gareth?
Leonard Weinstein did not say there is an anthropogenic factor, he said “or if there is AGW, it is relatively small and is sitting on top of a larger natural variation that dominates the climate.”
bold mine, again
The words after the comma are mine, The statement should read Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, ( this where my words start)………. or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance.
I do not attribute all of the posting to Leonard, my words start with the word ‘or’. It’s a reasonably well known grammatical sentence structure. You ask ‘Who are most people who believe there is an anthropogenic factor in climate change”? Well I suppose we could start with Anthony. There may be people who feel that there is no human influence on climate at all, but I don’t believe that is a common philosophy. The 64 dollar question is how influential that factor is, is it minimal or major, a combination of factors or an unknown?
@ richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:12 am
Sorry, in my previous post ‘Gareth Phillips’ became truncated to ‘th Phillips’ for some reason.
I apologise for this. It was inadvertent and not intended as an insult.
Richard
No problem Richard, my own typing is pretty grim at times.
dbstealey says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:08 am
I agree that Sou is clueless.
But why give her oxygen? She craves the traffic generated here.
Disregard Sou. She is not worthy.
After visiting the site for the first time I agree completely. These “blue pill” folks choose to live in their fantasy world ignoring all real world evidence. Not worth a second glance.
The anger is likely to grow from ex-warmists who realize they have been played for fools.
And I suspect their will be plenty of contrarians ready to twist the knife once they see blood.
I think WUWT’s audience will grow.
Oops—“. . . THERE will be . . .”
Gareth you could count me in on the no human influence crowd. To clarify I am only talking about the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 causing increased AGW, not the BBQ sitting next to the temperature guage. Earth is a HUGE producer of CO2 without any modern humans taken into account. What Earth we have cleared and concreted so that nothing grows is a very tiny spot on the globe if collected together. What Earth we have cleared and planted simply replaces what Earth would have done anyway. And we used to build a fire and pretty much kept it going for every little family of people on Earth. So no I don’t think modern warming caused by the human portion of CO2 is noticed by clouds, the oceans, or our skin, being so tiny as to be buried in the width of the line used to represent the global temperature average.
We don’t yet know for sure what causes trends. Of the possibilities out there, I look for really powerful ones that are both highly variable as well as having slow turnaround times that could account for BOTH indices: long term trends and short term swings. Anthropogenic CO2 just doesn’t have the umph necessary to measurably push or pull climate quickly as well as slowly. It takes work to do that, and especially work that can be quick as well as long winded. So you need something with variable yet long winded muscle! Oceans have variable yet long winded muscle. The semi-permanent atmospheric pressure systems along with clouds have variable yet long winded muscle. We don’t and what we breath out doesn’t have any of these things. The Sun has long winded muscle but does not vary enough to account for temperature change. It just makes sense to me to look at very strong and capable sources before I spend time looking at a gnat’s ass.
The models need to be deeper in their correct performance then just the Temperature capstone. If the temperature distributions, water vapor, and other function are also not correct, then the models are flawed. A blackjack method that involves a rabbit’s foot an is right once – is not a good method.
“NO! Global warming has stopped.”
not really. You will know it has stopped when sea level stops rising.
remember. The global temperature does not exist. It’s a construct or index comprised of averaging SST ( from the first meter) and Air tempererage over land. When you combine those two you really dont have a physical metric that makes sense, you have an index of sorts that you can track historically. You’ll know the planet has stopped warming when the sea level stops rising.
REPLY: Readers take note. This is the moment that Mr. Mosher has dropped the self imposed “lukewarmer” label, and is now a full fledged “warmist”. – Anthony
JohnWho says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:27 am
BTW – doesn’t a kettle immediately begin to cool when taken off the stove? For sure, it does not get warmer.
But John, according to all the warmists the heat hasn’t been removed at all. CO2 levels have risen all this time so the burner hasn’t been “turned off”. The simple fact is that CO2 does not control the climate and this alone proves that.
Steven Mosher says:
I don’t think this is correct at all. If the temperature of the earth were to rise 5 degrees tomorrow and stay that temperature for 100 years than the sea would rise against a non moving temperature for 100 years. In fact the temperature could then drop a few degrees and the seas would rise. The sea rise will only indicate to us that the seas are currently warmer than at some point in the past. Measuring the rate of the rise would certainly be a better indicator of what the temperature is doing now.
Mr. Mosher, that is the silliest thing you have said so far. But I will use your logic from the first half of your comment, which was pretty good. The data you refer to is a sea level average across the globe. As such “you really don’t have a physical metric that makes sense, you have an index of sorts that you can track historically”.
@richard Courtney
richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:08 am
Gareth Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 5:55 am you write to me
I don’t want get into the usual slanging match with you Richard so I won’t use any bold type or block capitals.
Richard says
Well, if you “don’t want get into the usual slanging match” then don’t try to pretend you are an idiot.
Gareth responds LOL !
Looks altogether conclusive that something else besides CO2 is dictating the temperature. Tragic really that the politicians of the world have given credence to this abomination of scientific misinformaion
If we need to KNOW what temperature is doing now, the only scientifically supportable way to KNOW is to measure the temperature accurately over some period of time to see whether the temperature changes; and, if so, how. However, once we begin “adjusting” the temperature measurements, we only think we know if and how the temperature is changing. There is no substitute for the proper temperature measuring instruments, properly calibrated and installed.
Old’un,
People are still obsessed with the end of the world.
Hollywood has turned out a few rare goodes about the End Of The World, but they are well hidden in the mountains of apocalyptic dreck they derivatively churn out as well. Jehovah’s witnesses dated the apocalypse to start in 1975. Hal Lindsey had the apocalypse starting in the same time frame. The climate kooks of today deny it (lol) but there was a nice heavily sourced and well footnoted apocalyptic ice age going on in the 1970’s.
Chaucer made fun of apocalyptic clap trap in “The Canterbury Tales”, cleverly contrasting naive faith and cyncial manipulation of that faith by the educated.
Nearly every mythos has a Flood story, and many have fiery end of the world stories.
AGW is a secularist’s way to indulge their need for apocalypse without dealing with any of the pesky God stuff. Instead, they have hidden heat, warming in the pipeline, storms that are just around the corner, great extinctions, ‘settled science’, all being thwarted by evil denialists who want to wreck the planet.
Ed Reid says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:08 am
Temperature and temperature change are “discernable with our current instrumentation”. Any anthropogenic contribution to that temperature or temperature change is not amenable to instrumental measurement.
If this is in reply to my post of October 14, 2013 at 7:02 am, then we are in agreement and that is what I thought I was implying.
Otherwise, disregard this post. 🙂
Steven Mosher,
You are painting yourself into a non-falsifiable corner with your moving of the goal posts to slr.
You make an assertion with no backing whatsoever, which is not really like you.
You are, I hope, aware that slr has been rising for quite some time?
If the AGW signal has been impossible for the best minds and most powerful computers to discern after these many years, what can you offer to show that slr is
1- a valid proxy for climate change caused by CO2
2- when it became the important measure
3- an accurate way to measure climate change globally
4- a way tell what part of the alleged slr is due to anthropo causes
5- is doing anything unusual or dangerous
Gareth Phillips:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 8:15 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/#comment-1447570
OK. I admit I was wrong to think you were pretending 🙂
Richard
Mosher is admitting, here, that global temperature trends can only be identified with certainty decades after the fact.
But even after that happens, there will be people pointing to the tide gauges as if they mean anything at all about absolute sea level.
izen says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:10 am
There are no paleoclimate data showing any of the warming cycles since the depths of the LIA to be exceptional. The slope of the past three in the late 19th century, early & late 20th centuries is about the same, especially in the least “adjusted” data sets. The second cycle was probably also warmer than the peak of the just past one, but the CACA data minders have rewritten climate history, like the Party line-toeing commissars they are.
The long term cooling trend of the past three to five thousand years remains intact. Proxy data show that the highs of the warm periods (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern) & lows of the cold periods (Old Testament, Dark Ages, LIA) are both still declining. Less well supported, but still observable IMO is that the periods are getting shorter, ie climate is becoming more erratic as we head toward the next glacial phase. But this could also be an artifact of finer sampling closer to the present.
@ Gareth Phillips
Your words, to me, imply a discernible anthropogenic factor, while Leonard Weinstein’s clearly do not.
I am not so sure that “most people” believe that there is a discernible anthropogenic factor and there are even less that believe there is a discernible anthropogenic CO2 factor. Of course, as always, if “most people” is 1 more than half, then maybe… 🙂
At least, that’s what I gather from reading non-CAGW information.
Certainly not worth de-railing the thread over.
Steven Mosher says:
“You will know [global warming] has stopped when sea level stops rising.”
OK.
And Envisat agrees. Global warming has stopped.
Steven Mosher says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:56 am
The rate of sea level rise has already slowed. It will fall, & dramatically, when the next glacial phase begins. Until then, it will remain in the narrow limits it has known for most of the Holocene. The orbital mechanical parameters of the Milankovitch Cycles control the onset of ice sheets, which ocean water to be drawn up onto the land.
Meanwhile, air temperature (controlled by solar & other celestial forces, plus the oceans’ own current cycles) & pressure are not the only factors in sea level. Thermal expansion of the oceans also depends upon geology, as in plate tectonics & the amount of submarine volcanism, which to some degree is modulated by orbital mechanics but primarily owes to superplume motions in the mantle.
The warming of 1977-96 was nothing at all out of the ordinary, but rather to be expected. Business as usual in the Holocene & every other interglacial phase, most if not all of which have been much warmer than our current one, using real proxy data instead of the man-made lies of GISS & HadCRU.
I remember being schooled many times that AGW caused accelerated warming through the feedbacks. That is THE reason increased levels of CO2 were supposedly so dangerous.
Every idiot who claimed accelerating warming (all of the Warmers) has decisively been proven wrong.
The new Stadium Theory predicts flat temps through 2030. If correct the IPCC will be gone by then or tasked with Anthropogenic cooling.
Steven, this is why your statement was so silly:
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html
So average sea level rise is…apparently whatever you want to say it is.
JohnWho:
I agree all you say in your post at October 14, 2013 at 8:36 am.
However, there is an important issue which needs to be a starting point; i.e. claims that global warming has “reduced” need to be refuted. This is because when it is understood that discernible global warming has stopped – and it has – then consideration of explanations of how and why it is stopped can be properly assessed.
These explanations include ideas of how and why global warming from AGW has been interrupted (e.g. Wyatt & Curry, Li et al.) and contrasted with explanations of why AGW is not a significant consideration when assessing variations in global temperature (e.g. Tisdale).
Personally, I find Tisdale’s explanation most cogent, but debate of any of these matters needs to be from a foundation of empirical reality. At least this thread has not been trolled by people making personal attacks on Bob Tisdale in the manner of the attacks on Judith Curry in the thread about her work.
Richard
Richards Courtney: I’ve always wondered if the Earth adjusts Water Vapor ( A more potent GHG than CO2) to self regulate Temperature. Specifically we know that water vapor in the air will slow down the rate of cooling whilst its absence promotes rapid cooling. I’m only talking Humidity ATM.
Lastly, how accurate are the measurements to compute Earths energy and is that the only way to look at things or simply the best way?
Thanks for your time.
Since “Global Warming” is an aggregate measure, it is difficult at times to parse language when talking about it’s individual components (Sun, Water, CO2, etc) since each are trending in their own direction. Currently we may be seeing a reduction in warming from the Sun, a peak in the warming from the PDO/Water cycle, and an increase in C02 based warming (although not as much as predicted by the IPCC ECS) for a NET GLOBAL WARMING OF ZERO the last 15+ years. Note that it isn’t a “WARMING PAUSE” unless one clearly knows the algorithm for predicting and weighting each of the individual components. Short of that we are all guessing, but we should be aware of the semantics of the components versus the aggregate when having discourse. I think this is partially the case in the Gareth discussion above.
Regarding sea level, there is a new sea level satellite undergoing calibrations right now – the Saral satellite carrying the AltiKa instrument. It’s early measurements are quite a bit lower than Jason 1 and Jason 2.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/courses/sci-teams/altika-science-team/2013-saral-nrt-verification-workshop/presentations.html
Would that all men think, “Short of that we are all guessing, but we should be aware of the semantics of the components versus the aggregate when having discourse.” ;>))
Bob the answer is no.The failure of the models will not be the downfall of the IPCC.
Their other behaviours are more than enough, as Mark Twain quipped, “A lie will be halfway around the world, by the time truth gets its boots on.”
After wasting public treasure in the $trillions, kneecapping the worlds poorest people and attempting to bring the worlds economy to a halt, I feel the UN and their agency have done more than enough to bring about their own demise.
It is just a matter of time.
Bob T., Thanks
=============
“You will know it [global warming] has stopped when sea level stops rising.” S. M.
Me thinks the above is brusque to the extent it became meaningless.
Over the past several years (at WUWT and other sites) I have read of several reasons sea level might rise or fall and an additional couple of reasons why measuring sea level is quite difficult. I do know that the land/ocean interface along Oregon, Washington, and B. C. has been changing for quite some time. Awhile back there was a massive amount of ice filling the Puget Sound Lowland and the nearby ocean was about 100 meters lower. More or less the water level has been rising ever since.
Currently when the phrase “global warming” is tossed about there seems to be a background of CO2 forcing and human guilt lurking in the comment. If this reasoning is behind the above quote, then can we assume he who made it thinks the last ~17,000 years of sea level rise can be stopped by redirecting society to a non-CO2 economy?
Also, cannot Earth’s land ice melt at the current temperature?
Cannot Earth’s land ice melt at a slightly lower temperature?
Uff da!
No it is not just a matter of time. Only the right to bare arms end tyranny. Tyranny never collapses on itself nor falls on its own sword. It must be forced to capitulate by the overwhelming will and strength of the common people who have the means to back it up.
BBould:
At October 14, 2013 at 8:55 am you ask me
Firstly, nobody knows “if the Earth adjusts Water Vapor ( A more potent GHG than CO2) to self regulate Temperature”. This is because the system is extremely complex. And, sorry, but I cannot give a proper explanation of that here: it would take a book.
Please be assured that I am not being evasive. And I provide the following brief points to demonstrate why I am not able to give a proper reply.
1.
The proportions of IR emitted from water vapour molecules to space and to the surface vary with the altitude of the molecules.
2.
Then, what is meant by adjusting water vapour?
You say you are only asking about humidity, but humidity interacts with several other things to adjust the water vapour in the air.
3.
Formation of clouds is one type of adjustment. And clouds can act to amplify warming (e.g. by reducing heat loss from the surface to space at night) and reduce warming (by reflecting solar energy back to space so it does not reach the surface; i.e. an effect noticed by sunbathers when a cloud passes in front of the Sun). A change to cloud cover of only 1% would be too small to measure but could induce more global warming than is asserted to have happened since the industrial revolution.
4.
Evapouration and rainfall are also “adjustments” to water vapour. More heat leads to more evapouration which cools the surface, but this increases the amount of water vapour in the air to increase the greenhouse effect and to generate e.g. the Ramanathan&Collins Effect and also the Eschenbach Effect which are the subject of discussion on the current WUWT Spencer v Eschenbach thread.
5.
Rain dissolves CO2 from the air and transports it into the oceans.
6 to n.
etc.
All of these issues and more contribute to the variations of atmospheric humidity and their effects on global temperature.
And you also ask about “the Earth’s energy”. By this I assume you mean the Earth’s energy budget. This provides a near constant balance because the energy from the Sun and the energy to space must equal. However, the distribution of energy within the Earth’s air, land and oceans can vary to alter surface temperatures both locally and globally. This is experienced as changes to both weather and climate.
In the context of this thread I commend the writings of Bob Tisdale about how the oceans move energy. The Search facility on the front page of WUWT will provide all you could want.
Measurements of where the energy is distributed within and between the Earth’s air, land and oceans are grossly inadequate. For example, in case you have not seen it I offer this for your interest especially its Appendix B
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
I know this is not an adequate reply and probably not what you wanted. But it is the best I can do here. Sorry.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:56 am
You’ll know the planet has stopped warming when the sea level stops rising.
====
Mosh, are you aware of this paper?….a full 65% of tide gauges have shown no sea level rise at all.
Since satellites were tuned to tide gauges…where did they find the tide gauges to tune them to show sea level rise?
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf
The disconnect between theory (model) and observation in its finer parts has been obvious for a long, long time. The disconnect, however, could be explained as noise or larger-scale natural variation as well as non-representative modelling: the choice was subjective and a reflection of the pragmatic advice given by William James to choose that which pleases or supports you given equal evidence. (An ironic situation, considering the IPCC supporters wish to say their thoughts are all science driven). We may be at a point where the evidence is not equal – of course us skeptics say it has not been equal for a time – but human nature allows wiggle room even at this point.
The IPCC narrative will not go down until significant mainstream supporters question at least the likelihood of the alarming parts. They, too, have a prior position and image to defend. We have seen the German greens question the ‘warming” due to cold winters, but what is necessaary is for an American mainstream group to wonder outloud about the disconnect. That hasn’t happened yet.
Nothing is so hard to see as the mote in one’s own eye. But once one admits therre is a problem, and gets away with it, all others find it easier to admit to the same thing.
The cost of rising energy due to anti-fossil fuel lobbies is a force to be reckoned with. It brings one’s personal desire – a cheaper operating cost of his life – in conflict with his intellectual desire to live in an “Earth-friendly” way. Such a conflict is resolved when the existential threat is redetermined to be real and an imperative to action – or when the threat is downgraded. Both resolutions require an honest (sortof) reappraisal, not a reaffirmation, but a reappraisal. The reappraisal is unavoidable.
A cold winter and high heating bill this year could do it. If Britain scales back and justifies it by questioning the high-end of the IPCC fears, the Amerrican position will be isolated to a large extent. Nobody likes to be standing on the hill waving the flag all alone: there will be questions rising in the popular press in the US if that occurs.
The cracks in the story exist already. We need someone of stature to recognize his individual benefit in widening one or two close to his home. There isn’t enough intrinsic strength to keep it all together once one piece gets loose.
Pamela Gray says:
October 14, 2013 at 9:34 am
It may yet escalate from carrying barricades to manning them, with men & women bearing arms:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/13/protesters_at_vet_march_on_dc_storm_memorials_carry_barricades_to_white_house.html
As an interested kibitzer in this climate game I think I’ve finally figured out strictly from the moves that have been made, the heart of the matter, the answer to the big question: “is the ‘A’ in AGW actually there and significant, that is does it determine the direction of the trend of the temperature of the globe to the extent that the deviations from what would have been normal will affect us or our progeny (and I don’t mean just make us uncomfortably warm or cold at times)?” The answer is no (not that we won’t ever be threatened naturally). It is becoming more and more apparent that the natural climate cycles have currently overwhelmed man’s contributions to the climate (whatever they may be) and will continue to do so in the future. The known natural climate cycles (and I’m lumping everything into that from the Milankovitch cycles to the ocean oscillations) have currently stymied any contributions to warming man has made (a fact that should have been predicted and so makes me think there might be just a touch of scam in some of the accepted climate science). Then too from the Holocene optimum (what, 8-10K years or so ago) it’s been downhill temperature wise. A quick look at the series of glaciations and interglacials over the last few million years indicates that trend in this current interglacial is just going to steepen. If our puny attempts at warming the climate can’t overcome the ocean oscillations how can they possibly overcome a glaciation? We probably have a lot to fear but it isn’t warming and i doubt we can do much about it so don’t worry, be happy.
Good post Bob.
May I suggest people read more about “mode waters”. They are heated by the tropical sun, and the intense evaporation increases its salinity and density. As it is transported northward by the western boundary currents (Kuroshio and Gulf Stream) mode waters cool and sink carrying tremendous amounts of stored heat below the surface (But not as deep as Trenberth would hope). Mode waters are then capped by warm surface waters that form each spring and summer. However when surface waters cool in the fall and winter, the mode waters are warm enough to rise to the surface and ventilate the stored heat. The short window of ventilation means that ocean heat may take from 2 to 30 years to ventilate from the sub-tropical gyres, depending on location that affects recharging, mixing, etc. If the solar activity is the dominant factor heating tropical waters and recharging mode waters, Then we should expect a temperature plateau that could last for 15 to 30 year past the 90s solar max. Solar trends would then predict cooling to begin in earnest in the 2020s. The natural experiment is rapidly approaching. The IPCC’s scientific basis admits added CO2 in the tropics as a very minor effect on the greenhouse effect, so its a good bet we will see more cooling soon.
@ Pamela Gray says:
October 14, 2013 at 9:34 am
No it is not just a matter of time. Only the right to bare arms end tyranny.
Love it! Roll your sleeves up for freedom!
One of the assumptions which I’ve not yet seen overtly discussed is whether the amplitude of a given PDO/AMO cycle can vary from cycle to cycle, just like sunspot cycles can.
I can perfectly well imagine that it could and, if it could, what’s the chance that far from a ‘hiatus’ there is actual cooling for 20 years??
Richards Courtney:
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me.
Interestingly we know the effects of water vapor on our climate or weather much better than we know the effects of CO2. Yet many scientists blame CO2 on causing warming and that measurement of warming is suspect. Fascinating!
I read the link and like your conclusion – “We conclude that the use of time-series of temperature change alone has the potential to be a strongly misleading indicator of global climate change.”
I stay away from discussions about global energy balance because I don’t understand how they compute it and if it makes any sense at all. I do understand conservation of energy at its most basic idea but do have doubts about their ability to measure it accurately.
As I said earlier if Wyatt and Curry are correct and we will have no warming until 2030 we can stick a fork in the IPCC cause they are done!
Remember what energy production has cost humanity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24506122
Today is the 100th anniversary of the dreadful mining accident at Senghenydd in South Wales. Many people with backgrounds in the mining communities of South Wales will have lost, or know someone who lost a loved one. One of the worst aspects of the whole tragedy is the way widows and children were summarily evicted from their homes after their husbands were killed. The mine owners were found at fault and fined the equivalent of 5 pence per dead miner. Is it no wonder this abuse resulted in a political movement which lasts to this day in Wales, and part of the impact of that action was our NHS and concern with the safety of workers. So at this time we remember the victims of blind profiteering at any cost and the toll energy production can take on our communities. It’s what made me a skeptic in many ways, there are many forecasts of the toll climate change will take. I have not yet heard of communities devastated by climate change, but I know many that were slaughtered by traditional energy production.
Apologies for being off topic.
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am is not only off topic: it is daft.
Everything has a downside. What matters is whether on balance something is net beneficial. Do you advocate banning the use of vehicles because thousands of people are killed in road accidents each year?
The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture.
Richard
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:38 am
This time of year in the NH I rarely bear arms with bare arms, although today might be an exception.
I think you miss the point again Richard. Always remember, it’s always better to let people think you are a fool than post a dumb response and confirm it. I know of thousands of people who died as a result of coal mining, how many do you know who have died of climate change?
@ milodonharlani says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:26 am
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:38 am
This time of year in the NH I rarely bear arms with bare arms, although today might be an exception.
Gareth responds,
Probably does no ‘arm.
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am says in full
NO! I addressed the point you made in your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am, This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/#comment-1447721
Your long post was about coal mining deaths in South Wales and its first sentence said
and it ended saying
That penultimate sentence was the only mention of climate change and another sentence mentioned the NHS.
My answer said in total
Your response that I am answering is a clear attempt to excuse your daft and off topic post because I called you on it.
Richard
rtj1211 says: “whether the amplitude of a given PDO/AMO cycle can vary from cycle to cycle”
Tree ring studies that capture the PDO have shown that the PDO amplitude was stronger and period shorter during the 20th century, and weaker and longer during the Little Ice Age. I suspect that is a function of solar heating.
MacDonald (2005) wrote ( In Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32,) “extended periods in the 13th century and in the 17th through 18th centuries the 50 to 70 year PDO signal weakened or disappeared” and “A prolonged period of strongly negative PDO values between AD 993 and 1300 is contemporaneous with a severe medieval megadrought that is apparent in many proxy hydrologic records for the western United States and Canada.”
That strong negative PDO corresponds with the severe droughts in the American southwest that collapsed most of the native cultures.
Many reseachers suggest that solar activity modulates the frequency, writing
“The quasicentennial oscillation revealed by our reconstructed PDO dominated the PDO time series persistently before 1850. It is likely associated with the Gleissberg cycle (70–100-yr) of solar irradiance [Lohmann et al., 2004]. The Gleissberg cycle is correlated with low-frequency oscillations of temperature in the Northern Hemisphere [Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991; Oh et al., 2003; Lohmann et al., 2004]. Our identified warm and cool regimes before 1850 generally coincide with low and high solar irradiance intervals, respectively.”
Read Shen (2006) A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed from
proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33.
Steven Mosher says: “You will know it has stopped when sea level stops rising.”
Would you like to rethink that statement and try again?
Can you look at a graph of sea level, Steven, and differentiate between the contributions of thermal expansion and the mass contributions from ground water pumping and from glacial melt?
Richard, many people died in the cause of freedom, are you saying we should not remember them and the sacrifice they made to provide us with what we have today ? It is 100 years since the most devastating mining accident to hit the UK. You may sneer and mock, but some of us remember the sacrifices of our forebears. Energy production had a list of casualties like a modern day war, yes, you are right, we benefitted, but we remember and thank the Lord we don’t face the same horrors. I’d rather see a hillside covered in wind turbines than coal tips.
And Richard, when you’re in a hole, stop digging, and for Pete’s sake stop using the childish writing form of bold letters and underlines as a substitute for informed debate. Any discussion is not about who can shout the loudest or write the biggest letters.
dbstealey says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:38 am
What is wrong with using more up to date data dbstealey?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
And as for “Global Warming has stoppped” I’ll let Dr Spencer comment on that…
“I would remind folks that the NASA AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has actually measured the small decrease in IR emission in the infrared bands affected by CO2 absorption, which they use to “retrieve” CO2 concentration from the data. Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of. Conservation of energy, folks. It’s the law.”
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Every technology comes at a cost. Of course mine safety is vitally important, as is insulating power transmission lines to prevent electrocutions.
But humanity is more numerous, longer-lived, more comfortable, richer, healthier & safer, among other benefits, in 2013 than 1613 (~500,000,000 people), 1713, 1813 or 1913 thanks to fossil fuels. It’s presently impossible to sustain seven billion humans without hydrocarbons & their products.
Nick Kermode,
Thank you for that graph. It shows conclusively that there has been no acceleration of sea level rise. What is observed is the recovery since the LIA. There is no human fingerprint shown.
Further, I prefer to rely on Envisat and Jason, direct satellite measurements of sea level. It is more honest data than anything else.
Regarding the fact that global warming has stopped, empirical evidence supports that fact.
Finally, your Spencer quote says nothing about AGW. Global warming has stopped. Deal with that fact.
Gareth Phillips:
You have earned my ire with your insane drivel at October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm. It says in total
Firstly, in the days when the UK had a coal industry I was elected as the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management in five successive elections. I and my colleagues successfully worked to transform the UK’s coal mining industry from a death trap into being the safest mining (yes, mining not only coal mining) industry in the world. Your suggestion that I don’t care about coal mining deaths is an outrage!
And even by your standards it is stupid and ignorant beyond belief to suggest that bird swatters can replace power stations. Read this and – in the unlikely circumstance that you can – learn
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Importantly, you are the one who needs to “stop digging”. A cogent discussion does not consist – as you seem to think – of being a competition to provide the most stupid, offensive and ignorant blather.
Richard
milodonharlani says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Every technology comes at a cost. Of course mine safety is vitally important, as is insulating power transmission lines to prevent electrocutions.
But humanity is more numerous, longer-lived, more comfortable, richer, healthier & safer, among other benefits, in 2013 than 1613 (~500,000,000 people), 1713, 1813 or 1913 thanks to fossil fuels. It’s presently impossible to sustain seven billion humans without hydrocarbons & their products.
I fully agree, my post was basically to honour the 470 men and boys who gave their lives to provide us with that resource 100 years ago today. Apologies for for causing the deviation in the thread, lets get back to that topic of sea level rise and IPCC validity. Cheers G.
Richard, I did not say Wind turbines could replace conventional energy sources, I said I preferred them to coal tips on our hillsides. Read it again. Well done on improving the safety of mine workers, I salute you. But that still does not mean that those hundreds on men and boys who died in the UK worst mining accident 100 years ago today don’t deserve to be remembered for their sacrifice. So lets move back to the thread, but before we do,maybe as as a past Mine manager you could join me in saluting them and the countless others who died? And chill out, when you get angry it’s not just your formatting you lose! 🙂
Gareth Phillips:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm
I was not a Mine Manager. I was the Senior Materials Scientist and I was employed at the Coal Research Establishment. Despite that, the Mine Managers repeatedly elected me to represent them as the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management.
You say
As an excuse that fails. Dig the coal from a deep mine and you get waste from the mine which can be landscaped, and you get useful energy and power at low cost. Build the wind turbines and you get high costs, you cover the landscape in concrete for the turbines’ foundations and the roads to access them, you get disruption to the electricity grid, and you get higher fuel consumption and more emissions from power generation, but you get nothing else.
Of course I regret and remember all who died to get the energy we needed for our modern civilisation. Your suggestion that I don’t is a disgraceful and unfounded insult for which you have not apologised.
As I said,
Richard
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am
I think you miss the point again Richard. Always remember, it’s always better to let people think you are a fool than post a dumb response and confirm it. I know of thousands of people who died as a result of coal mining, how many do you know who have died of climate change?
===================================================
How about all the children that have died world wide of dysentery and other things caused by not having clean drinking water. The monies that have been wasted on so called “clean energy” over the last 17 years. could have easily provided clean water for them all. They died from “climate change”.
Oh that’s right. They died of alarmist’s stupidity.
Gareth: “Imagine a car speeding up to 70 miles an hour …. Now if the motor stops and the car is free wheeling for a for while at 70 miles and hour, is it still speeding, although it is no longer being powered? ”
Only if the speed limit if 55 mph. ‘Speeding up’ and ‘speeding’ are two different things, and this is a textbook example of fallacy arising from equivocation. Stating at as ‘speeding along’ would have made no difference at all in this instance either. As only is speaking about a positive change in velocity over time, the other about a velocity in excess of a threshold, and the last about having a velocity.
No difference here in ‘warming’ as the theory, ‘warming’ as a increase in temperature over time. And ‘warming’ when including zero as an ‘increase.’ Though if an absence of increase is an increase, then a change the wrong way is the same as a change the right way. And we better get the vapors back on about the coming Ice Age.
“Remember what energy production has cost humanity.”
It has cost our to be unperturbed by gushing Apple fanbois talking loudly on their iPhones. It has cost us the studied use of language by cramped writing with a quill pen, as now everyone that shouldn’t speak types volumes into the comments of blogs. There is care that needs to be taken with statements based on generalizations. It’s essentially an “All swans are white” problem.
“Every black I know is a criminal” therefore “All blacks are criminals.” This is the precise generalization we use noramally and unobjectionably. Even, and especially, in science. The generalization is justified not because it is ‘True as Fact’ but because we are unaware of any counterfactuals. This is a bog standard inductive statement.
“75% of the blacks I know are criminals” therefore “Blacks are criminals.” Counterfactuals exist and so we drop the ‘all’ but retain the generalization as justifed by being a supermajority consideration. It need not be true as such, but we will have good success at prediction. It *is* stereotyping and it is so because the counterfactuals exist. But it is considered appropriate and useful.
“52% of the black I know are criminals” therefore “Black are criminals.” This is absolutely no different than the last. There is a moral dimension that here, due the subject, people will get up in arms about. But the Casino wins Blackjack 52% of the time. And people do not question the generalization “The House wins at Blackjack.” It is still a stereotype. And it is still appropriate. But in this condition, unless we are justifying the long term result of many bets, it is generally unacceptable.
“9% of the blacks in America are criminals” therefore “Blacks are criminals.” (9% being pulled from memory about lifetime conviction rates for African-Americans, but I have not double checked it.) Obviously you aren’t going to win any bets on this one. It is, more often than not, the express meaning behind ‘bigotry.’ But if you are taking risk-weighted bets, such as an actuary calculates for insurance policy rates, then they will have a different notion of things. That is, the costs and payouts are not symmetric. And given that, what counts as a ‘breakeven’ for a bet is no longer that 50/50 percentage rate.
It just change the odds of a winning or losing bet, for or against either position. But it changes the consequences from winning and losing bets. Such that, as a generalization of the consequentialist analysis, the stereotype is justified for use as a rule-of-thumb. This is the same sort of reasoning behind Jesse Jackson’s infamous quote about being relieved that blacks weren’t walking behind him at night.
But the generalization itself is not only counterfactual, it is not supported statistically. It can only be justified on the basis of the risk-weighting that underlies the construction of the generalization. And if you don’t know it, or cannot provide it, then it’s quite likely you picked it up from someone else. But did you pick up a good rule of thumb? Or did you infect yourself with mindless bigotry?
This consequentialist reasoning underlies the statements about Jesse Jackson and black pedestians, of the human cost of Coal Mines, and the Economic and Social costs of AGW. Quite specifically, this consequentialist reasoning is employed to justify ‘truthiness’ or ‘false but accurate’ statements. Where false evidence is used as a parable about the generalization, and as support for it. This is the manner in which the AGW climate models are used. They’re wrong, but if they were right, we should be terrified. And since we should be terrified, we should do something about coal mines. And since coal miners are black, you should be relieved when a coal miner isn’t walking behind you.
If the consequentialist generilzation is applied outside its boundaries, or used to justify anything other than a rule of thumb, it all goes off the rails immediately.
Gareth, too funny! Do we bear up or bare up? Its or it’s? Knit, nit, or gnat, nat? Actually, I prefer shooting with bare arms but sleeves when bearing them.
Anthony, is anyone else having problems loading the “Like this” thingys?…..
at over a hundred posts….it takes a while for me
…just checking!
Hi Pam, we bear up if we are being brave, or we bear arms if we are armed or we bare arms if we roll our sleeves up, bur we are bear wary if we are in the woods. Please bear with me, it all makes sense!
Way back earlier in this thread:
“Ron Hansen says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:32 am
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
———–
What Gareth Phillipps says is neither important nor honest. “
Perhaps this is true, Ron, but even so, should we let some of his statements stand and allow them to mislead others?
For example:
“Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am
I know of thousands of people who died as a result of coal mining, how many do you know who have died of climate change?”
If we are talking about the recent “Climate Change” – warming since the end of the Little Ice Age – then doesn’t this fact apply:
more people die each year from the cold than do from heat.
Therefore, I put forth that more people are still alive due to “climate change” than have died from it.
Are these people who want to stop this “climate change” to be considered heartless supporters of a process that, if it does what they claim it will, would increase the number of people who die each year from the cold?
Richard, did you not say in response to my post on these miners “Your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am is not only off topic: it is daft.” You are condemned by your own words I’m afraid. And if you really think coal tips are more damaging to the countryside than wind turbines, well we just have to differ and put that down to our aesthetic differences, but you know, I never saw a windmill slide down a hill and kill hundreds of children. I was there Richard. I heard the tip sliding, luckily I was in a different school in the next village. Glad to hear you remember the the men of Senghenydd, albeit with a little prompting. Lets leave it at that.
Jquip, I enjoyed your post, hopeful we don’t ever use the racist generalisations you quote. By why did you spoil and interesting post by stating after some good analysis “But did you pick up a good rule of thumb? Or did you infect yourself with mindless bigotry?” What was the point of that? What did it achieve? I must admit I also lost your thread a bit when you said “And since coal miners are black, you should be relieved when a coal miner isn’t walking behind you” They are generally not black in Wales ( except when coming off shift), in fact we don’t have miners at all anymore. I think you are talking about extrapolating situations to generalised cautions and catastrophisation of all situations? If so it’s something I worked with in my clinical role through the medium of CBT and Becks approaches to black and white thinking. You may be interested in automatic thoughts if negative and pathological generalisations of random situations are an area of interest.
Gareth Phillips:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm.
NO! I will NOT “leave it like that”.
You have not revoked and not apologised for your offensive and grievous untrue insult. Indeed, you have added to it.
Clearly, you are a nasty little troll, and I will continue to remember your behaviour until you retract and apologise because it tells all that needs to be known about your reasons for posting on WUWT.
Richard
Gareth: “And if you really think coal tips are more damaging to the countryside than wind turbines, well we just have to differ and put that down to our aesthetic differences, ”
So quite rather than ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ it is ‘The Mona Lisa damages the Louvre.’ And therefore we should ban the products of DaVinci.
“I never saw a windmill slide down a hill and kill hundreds of children.”
I’ve never seen a coal tip kill anyone. Or a windwill. But I have seen people die from old age. We should really do something about that. In fact, I’ve seen people die from the birth process. There ought to be a law.
Come to think, life is fatal. You aren’t getting out of it alive. The only proper thing to do is set up a UN body to make policy recommendations for how to prevent life from occurring.
A bit of clarity would help your thinking, G.
Gareth: “What was the point of that? What did it achieve? ”
It’s encouragement to have a Socratic dialogue with yourself. What do you know and how do you know it?
“They are generally not black in Wales… ”
I hardly doubt it. Which is part of the point. They are generally black in other elsewheres. But in other elsewheres there generally aren’t coal tips, windmills, long term warming trends, or even just blacks. Generalizations are general and dependent quite a bit on context. And consequentialist generalizations are just a further extension. They have utility where they do, but in extrapolating them to universality, all manner of hazards occur.
@Quip
Jquip says:
October 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Gareth: “And if you really think coal tips are more damaging to the countryside than wind turbines, well we just have to differ and put that down to our aesthetic differences, ”
So quite rather than ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ it is ‘The Mona Lisa damages the Louvre.’ And therefore we should ban the products of DaVinci.
“I never saw a windmill slide down a hill and kill hundreds of children.”
I’ve never seen a coal tip kill anyone. Or a windwill. But I have seen people die from old age. We should really do something about that. In fact, I’ve seen people die from the birth process. There ought to be a law.Come to think, life is fatal. You aren’t getting out of it alive. The only proper thing to do is set up a UN body to make policy recommendations for how to prevent life from occurring.
A bit of clarity would help your thinking, G.
Hi quip, can I recommend this study if you wish to indulge in psychobabble or contradictory dissonance? You may find it especially useful, it addresses many of the points you raise. Have fun. It’s a good primer. http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY2001/globwarm.pdf Otherwise your posting does not make sense (I’ve never seen someone murdered, but I don’t think that justifies it’s legalisation). Look up the concepts of straw men, it may give you some insight into the nature of your argument.
Good night Richard, don’t forget your medication. I have a long meeting in London tomorrow so I have to call a halt . Thanks by the way for your true illustration of how a troll behaves. Can I use it in my lectures ? By the way until you find the next person to rant and rave at in order to project your unresolved anger in inappropriate directions can I recommend this light reading? It may help, as long you try and relax and stop being a one man nuclear detonation of anger at any imagined slight or anyone who does not fit exactly with your view of the world. Here’s the paper . Nos Da.
http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY2001/globwarm.pdf
ps. I’ve really tried hard, but think it’s best not to debate with you in future, I’m sure you’ll understand. Just enter my name in your big book of bastards I have met on WUWT.
This article says
” Their Figure 3 shows a multidecadal component from Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures and a relatively low warming rate in a residual—a warming rate that excludes the higher rate imposed by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since the mid-1970s. ”
However Figure 3a has a zero trend. They state that they use a detrended temperature record. If you subtract zero from something then it is unchanged, so Figure 3b is the total trend from Hadcrut4, just smoothed a bit by removing the oscillation. You can see that 3b is (nearly) the total rise just by going at looking at the Hadcrut4 data <a href=http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1900/mean:12/to:2011/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1900/to:2011/mean:12/trend
Their graph 3a shows a correlation between AMO and that part of the NH temperature record that does not have a rising trend i.e. the AMO’s effect all cancels out over the time period of the graph (1900-2011).
Gareth Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 2:55 pm you again refuse to withdraw your grossly offensive smear and conclude saying
Indeed I do “understand”. You are incapable of rational debate.
Also, I do not have such a book and if I did you would not be in it. You are a nasty and particularly slimey troll who is nowhere near deserving the respect afforded to “bastards”.
Richard
Gareth: “Look up the concepts of straw men, it may give you some insight into the nature of your argument”
One of the notions of a rebuttal is that when you rebut a point, you argue for why the point fails. Name-dropping fallacies does not suffice on its own. This is a broad and general notion and why why, for example, dueling Dunning-Kruger’s are entertaining. Without an argument as to the validity of an accusation of a Dunning-Kruger, the accuser is then justifiably counter-accused for violating Dunning-Kruger. And so the entire content of both arguments is. “No, you’re the cocky idiot.”
If the original form of argument was valid, then so to is the counter-accusation. So either the structure was valid, and they are both proven to be cocky idiots. Or the structure was invalid and the original accusation cannot be carried. Though, by humor of the context here, that proves the counter-accusation. For if the accuser was not a cocky idiot, they wouldn’t have made such a basic mistake of argument in the first place.
In particular here: To be a straw man I must be addressing the content of your arguments, restating in a manner that you did not conclude, and then argue against the conclusions you never reached. But then I am not speaking to the content of your arguments, I am speaking only to the structure of them. For if the structure is valid, then you must hold that it is valid for everyone to use the same structure.
So it would be of a great convenience if you understood the topic being discussed. And that you actually discussed the topic rather than some other topic entirely. Though, following your form, I could have simply cut it short by accusing you of a Red Herring, or any other variant of Ignoratio Elenchi, and recommended you read any basic text on reasoning.
vukcevic: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Do you have an actual model there or just a set of overlaid graphs?
Gareth Phillips: I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled.
I think that a cessation in global warming can be established if there is a sufficiently long period during which the temperature does not rise. With a pot on a stove, the temperature will rise until the heat loss from the sides of the pot and from the top of the water match the heat input, and then there will be a cessation in further warming.
Your “semantic point” that “cessation of warming” has to entail “cooling” is at best idiosyncratic, since they are clearly distinguishable. Perhaps you won’t be convinced that warming has ceased until there is demonstrable cooling, but that is not a necessary part of any definition.
If you live long enough you will start growing shorter. However, there was a cessation in the growth of you stature at about age 20-25, and you do not have to wait until you start getting shorter to find your maximum height.
And so on. The cessation of a process does not require a retrograde movement to define or mark it.
Gareth Phillips: I believe we are seeing a hiatus, it’s anybodies guess as to where it will go from here.
So we have a “hiatus” but not a “cessation in warming”. Perhaps you meant to say that there was a process generating the warming, and it was too soon to conclude that the process had been interrupted. That’s not a question of “semantics”.
jimmi_the_dalek says: “Their graph 3a shows a correlation between AMO and that part of the NH temperature record that does not have a rising trend i.e. the AMO’s effect all cancels out over the time period of the graph (1900-2011).”
I suggest you look at their Figure 3a again, jimmi_the_dalek. There are only 1.5 AMO cycles shown. How could that mean “the AMO’s effect all cancels out over the time period of the graph (1900-2011)”?
Sorry, try again!!
Regards
Bob,
It is detrended data. The authors say so. The graph shows it. If you subtract zero the original trend is unchanged. Therefore the trend in 3b is the whole of the Hadcrut4 trend. Whatever is in 3a sums to zero. I would say they have almost 2 cycles rather than 1.5, but that does not matter – it is detrended data so it sums to zero over an integer number of cycles. They show a correlation between AMO and detrended data. Therefore they show AMO sums to zero over an integer number of cycles. Therefore the AMO is not correlated to the trend in 3b.
It would be worthwhile lowering the passions and reflecting on the big points. At risk of over-simplification, my takeaways are:
1) The IPCC report showed exponentially increasing temperatures.
2) The primary driver was/is claimed to be increasing CO2 levels.
3) The longer the ‘hiatus’ (or even downturn), the greater the gap between forecast and actual, the weaker the CO2 link becomes and the more discredited the IPCC becomes.
4) There are several alternative hypotheses to explain the profile of measured temperatures but, at this point, none are proven. Nevertheless, if they are right, time is on the side of the ‘alternativists’.
Rather than get into fights or cat-calling why not focus on what proof is needed to significantly raise the confidence level in each of the alternative hypotheses? What data, over what time would be convincing (although not necessarily proof).
These alternative scenarios are rich fields for young scientists who want to make their mark. The more discredited the existing orthodoxy becomes, the richer theses alternatives look. Let’s give them reasons to invest their time and energy looking deeper. Of course, the established ‘warmists’ will hang on for dear life to their established positions and perceived academic standing, throwing mud wherever it suits their purpose. It will be other institutions that seize the challenge.
In the meantime the financial cost of reducing CO2 will effectively sideline much of the political debate. The can will be kicked down the road: “If the hiatus is real. perhaps we should wait.”
My last though, actually wish, is for everyone to stay the scientific course. That’s what matters. For the rest, remember the old saying:
“Never wrestle with a pig, the pig likes it and you get covered in mud.”
chipsnfish: “Rather than get into fights or cat-calling why not focus on what proof is needed to significantly raise the confidence level in each of the alternative hypotheses? What data, over what time would be convincing (although not necessarily proof).”
“Let’s give them reasons to invest their time and energy looking deeper.”
There’s an implicit consideration in this. If the standard hypothesis is convincing, then it is convincing on the basis of proof or not. If not, then there is no manner in which an alternate hypothesis can be considered convincing. Even if it relies on proof and does a better predictive job than the a priori assumptions.
The second consideration has two horns. In the first, the reason to invest time and energy, as an institutional concern, is a matter of income. Like it or lump it, scientists need to eat. And for now the government pays them for research. This is self-reinforced by peer review and the statements of colleagues that are also trying to eat. But with only so many grants, if a scientists wants to eat, they must first devour their colleagues.
In the second, government pays for the research. As a matter of self-interest in that institution they will not invest money in research that does not benefit the institution. Which means any research that concludes “Don’t Panic!” will not further the interest of the institution:
“Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it.”
I have to defend Steve Mosher here, provided he is talking geologic time-scale.
I’ve long believed that decreasing sea-levels is the only hard evidence humans will ever see of a completed Holocene interglacial and the shifting back to increasing glaciation. Looks pretty obvious to me when you examine the famous Meltwater Pulse graph …
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
However I suspect he might be talking at a different, shorter time-scale, and if so, that is an error. The macro scale of tens of thousands of years is what we can likely measure, not these piddly spans of human lifetimes or individual years, months and weeks that they would have us believe are accurately quantifiable from satellites and tide gauges on huge continents that are tilting and drifting around at their leisure.
Just look at that graph. Most of the glacial melt is behind us and we are now merely bobbing and weaving around zero delta. There is a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty at play here because we are just too close or simply incapable of measuring mere millimeters accuracy for something on a planetary scale, and then giving it the correct sign (+) or (-).
Most importantly, we’re clearly in an interglacial, we’re most likely in a post-LIA, we’re in a post-1970’s warmup. So, if we could measure to perfect accuracy, then what the heck should we see?
I had to leave the party.
Pamela Gray says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:45 am
….. It just makes sense to me to look at very strong and capable sources before I spend time looking at a gnat’s ass.
+1
Gareth,
Have a beer or two and then go back and read your comments. Then consider if you really wanted to write what you have in your many comments.
Matthew R Marler says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:03 pm
“If you live long enough you will start growing shorter.”
There is high confidence (95%) among those of a certain age that the above will happen. It also seems likely (mostly confident) from 34 or 35 measurements that there is a high correlation between the loss of height and the gain in width. Because correlation does not prove causation there is much research left to be done. That will require great costs for travel, food, and beverages. I am 97% sure I can waste much money on this topic. Please send at once. Thanks.
John F. Hultquist says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Matthew R Marler says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:03 pm
“If you live long enough you will start growing shorter.”
There is high confidence (95%) among those of a certain age that the above will happen. It also seems likely (mostly confident) from 34 or 35 measurements that there is a high correlation between the loss of height and the gain in width. Because correlation does not prove causation there is much research left to be done. That will require great costs for travel, food, and beverages. I am 97% sure I can waste much money on this topic. Please send at once. Thanks.
*
Throw in a cure for balding, and you’re probably onto something.
dbstealey says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Thanks Mr. db. In fact the link I posted does use Jason data, and says as much, it just looks a little different in it’s full context as compared to the graph you linked to which wedged just a few years out of the record. Without a rationalisation for this decision one is left to speculate as to why. Also you have me confused as to whether you think sea level rise has stopped or shows “no acceleration”.
Anyway, two genuine questions on your confident assertion;
“What is observed is the recovery since the LIA”
1. What IS observed? What IS the physical cause for this warming / sea level rise we are observing?
2. “recovery”? This word by definition means a return to a normal state. What is the “normal state” for Earths climate?
I would really be interested in your elaboration as your above statement gives me no physical cause or mechanism as to why temperatures are on their way to some chimerical “normal state.”
TIA, Nick
Matthew R Marler says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:53 pm
vukcevic: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Do you have an actual model there or just a set of overlaid graphs?
Graphs are based on the observational data:
a) Sunspot number
b) geomagnetic data used in various studies by Jault Gire, LeMouel, A.Jackson, J. Bloxham, D. Gubbins, R.Hide, D. Boggs, J. Dickey, A. Pais, G. Hulot and possibly many others.
Correlation appear to be compelling, physical mechanism is a matter of conjecture.
Either you can assume that the correlation is direct consequence of magnetic fields, or alternatively that changes in the geomagnetic field and N. Atlantic tectonic activity are direct consequence movements in the Earth’s interior, whereby tectonic affects the N. Atlantic currents.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm
Correlations are a plenty, causation if any is another matter
jimmi_the_dalek says: “It is detrended data. The authors say so.”
jimmi_the_dalek, you missed my point. The illustrated detrended data only runs through 1.5 cycles. In order for you to detrend the data so that the detrended data do not impact the long-term trend, you need at least 2 complete cycles–or only one cycle. You can’t split it at 1.5.
Bob,
Though it is difficult to read exact numbers from Li et al’s graph because of its small size, it looks to me as if 3b indicates a change of about 0.8C over the last century. This is about the same as the whole Hadcrut dataset over that time, and is what you would expect if they had effectively just subtracted a purely periodic signal from the original. ie. non-integer number of periods notwithstanding, they have not significantly altered the mean trend, just smoothed it out a bit.
Why does this matter? Well, lots of people are saying that the present pause/hiatus/flattening (choose your own term) in the temperature record indicates that GW is over. However, if there is a periodic signal in the data and if the ‘pause’ is due to that component passing over a maximum , then the ‘pause’ does not indicate cooling at all. In the graphs in Li’s paper it is 3b that shows the warming signal and 3a is a periodic modifier, which is important but not a net warming trend.
So to demonstrate warming is over, you need to show that the trend in graph 3b is either spurious or temporary, and to do that it would be necessary to determine how it arises. It is not sufficient to identify periodic factors, interesting though that is for predictions over the ~decade. I do not think this is discussed enough.