Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
We discussed Steinman et al. (2015) and Michael Mann’s post about it at RealClimate in the article On Steinman et al. (2015) – Michael Mann and Company Redefine Multidecadal Variability And Wind Up Illustrating Climate Model Failings. This brief post adds to that discussion.
THE PAUSE, HIATUS, SLOWDOWN (WHATEVER) IN GLOBAL WARMING IS MORE PREVALENT IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, YET MANN AND STEINMAN ET AL. FOCUSED ON THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE
The opening paragraph in Michael Mann’s post at RealClimate reads:
No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.
The initial topic of discussion is GLOBAL warming…and Mann’s perception that there is no pause in the surface temperatures GLOBALLY.
Yet Mann in his blog post and Steinman et al. have redirected the discussion from global warming to Northern Hemisphere warming. That is, Steinman et al. (2015) was not an examination of the modeled and observed surface temperatures globally. Their paper only looked at the surface temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic and North Pacific. Mann even notes this a few paragraphs later, where he opens the paragraph with:
We focused on the Northern Hemisphere…
But it’s well known that the hiatus, the pause, the slowdown, etc., in surface warming is more prevalent in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere. If you aren’t aware of that fact, I’ll show you.
The year 1998 is commonly used for the start of the global warming slowdown, and Kevin Trenberth used 2001 in his article Has Global Warming Stalled? for the Royal Meteorological Society. (Also see my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”.) So we’ll present the data with both start years. For the data, we’ll present the widely referenced, spatially complete GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data.
Figure 1 compares the Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface temperature anomalies during the hiatus. In the top cell, the data start in 1998, and in the bottom cell, the data start in 2001. As noted earlier, the slowdown in surface warming is more prevalent in the Southern Hemisphere.
Figure 1
And for those interested, Figures 2 and 3 present model-data comparisons for the Northern (Figure 2) and Southern (Figure 3) Hemispheres for the two slowdown periods. The models are represented by the multi-model mean of all of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, with historic forcings through 2005 and RCP8.5 scenario forcings thereafter. The data and the model outputs are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer. We present the multi-model mean because it best represents the consensus, the groupthink, on how surface temperatures should have warmed if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases and the other forcings. In other words, the model mean represents the forced component of the models. For additional information on the use of the model mean, see the post here. (Also see the discussion of Estimates of the forced component under the heading of Materials and Methods in the Supplementary Material furnished with Steinman et al.)
Figure 2
# # #
Figure 3
It appears that Michael Mann may have biased his opinions about the slowdown in global surface warming by looking only at data for the Northern Hemisphere, which shows higher warming rates than the Southern Hemisphere. One only has to look at trend maps of the global warming slowdown periods in Figure 4 to see that there is less warming in the Southern Hemisphere. (The trend maps are available from the GISS map-making webpage.)
Figure 4
CLOSING
The Steinman et al. (2015) analyses do not explain the slowdown and stoppage of surface warming in the Southern Hemisphere…and, as noted in the earlier post, they had to redefine multidecadal temperature variability to try to explain it in the Northern Hemisphere.
SOURCE
The GISS LOTI data and the climate model outputs are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is always my biggest complaint with the alarmists. They always need to lie. In this case it’s a lie of omission, only including half the world, then relying on the useful idiots in the media to report it as if it’s the entire planet. The alarmists seem to have only 3 communication modes, lie, exagerate, or wild speculation
4: “Be Vague”
5: ignore
6: “Ad hom”
7. Redefine.
7. “Deny”
9: “Use half-truths mixed with unproven assertions.”
Accuse.
Mix in one true, but irrelvant, fact, then mix with a dozen lies, miscaluculations and unprovable assertions. When challenged, loudly point out your single correct fact and challenge someone to disprove it. When they can’t, claim that therefore your entire article is correct.
11. Prevaricate
Mann’s original presentation of his (in)famous “hockey stick” graph in one of those IPCC reports (forget which one) clearly states right on the graph ….. Northern Hemisphere ….
So Mann even fudged on his hockey stick, which he subsequently turned into a global phenomenon, by simply disappearing the “northern hemisphere” on subsequent postings of his graph.
Originally it was just a …… local anomalous event …….
G
Or my favorite the corporate management model: Admit nothing, deny everything, make counteracusations.
And when all else fails, manipulate the data…
“…lie, exaggerate, or wild speculation”
And here I thought only politicians operated in that way. Actually politicians could learn a few tricks from climate scientists.
Interesting how the models are way out for the Southern Hemisphere and only a little out for the Northern.
Do the models not understand the how the sea responds (more Ocean in the SH than the NH)?
If so then the positive feedback that’s feared from water vapour looks most improbable.
Or is the Northern Hemisphere trend just plain wrong?
Land temperatures are more prone to UHI and there has been an increasing trend in urbanisation throughout the last 50 years.
The models don’t do the oceans very well, because the dominant influence on the atmosphere is not radiation above the ocean, it is evaporation and they can’t accurately calculate it.
And they seemingly don’t understand that when a gas expands it cools, awe inspiring stupidity and conceit on their part.
Heating (verb) is different on land from the ocean heating.
The oceans are heated by deep penetration of solar spectrum radiant energy, where it is subsequently absorbed in non-radiative processes, becoming “heat” (noun). But that heat is deep in the oceans, so it takes ages to move around and manifest itself near the surface.
On land, the surfaces are more strongly absorbing of solar spectrum energy than sea water is, and the thermal conductivity of the rocks is poor. This allows the surfaces to heat rapidly during the day (and radiate profusely), and reach much higher temperatures than the sea surface.
And at sundown, the surface temperatures drop rapidly for the same thermal reasons.
So no wonder Northern and southern hemispheres respond differently to solar energy.
The atmospheres of course over north or south don’t really differ much so they don’t really contribute much to any hemispherical differences.
Well that’s just my opinion of course so don’t say that in your PhD thesis.
In my view, the atmosphere doesn’t have much to do with earth’s temperatures; the thermal capacity is small compared to the solid and liquid parts of the earth.
And yes I do believe in GHG absorption and re-emission of LWIR radiant energy emitted by the surfaces.
G
George, you might want to read the article by Bob Tisdale below. It does not support your assertion that “The oceans are heated by deep penetration of solar spectrum radiant energy”.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/arguments-for-and-against-human-induced-ocean-warming/
M Courtney, You characterize the NH disagreement as “only a little”, but the observed temperatures show a slope just 1/2 or less than that of the models.
A factor of 2 seems a pretty big disagreement to me.
“It appears that Michael Mann may have biased his opinions ”
Biased? Mann? Surely not!
Mann is not smart enough to have an opinion. Mann only has causes, the biggest being casting himself as world savior.
IIRC wasn’t Mann’s hockey stick only based on NH proxies?
Yes, and when the MWP was pointed out, he said it was regional. Later it was shown to be at least NH-wide. That means the contrast between his ‘reconstruction/filtering is invalidated by just about everyone else because both were restricted (at the time) to the NH. Now that we have from NZ some proof it was global making the problem for the hockey stick even more acute.
Mann the faux scientist knows all about faux.
That Science mag would publish Mann’s crap speaks poorly of Marcia McNutt and her acquiesence to NCC and/or political pressure..
Are the differences of the land mass of the Northern and Southern hemisphere taken into account in these calculations.
I’ve developed an automatic, unkind response to anything produced or spoken by Mann.
reminds me of the climate science argument that the LIA only happened in the NH. Not having looked at the SH, climate science concluded that since they hadn’t looked there, the LIA must not have occurred there.
Now, since they didn’t look at the SH, climate science concludes that the Pause did not occur there.
It is Schrodinger’s cat applied to climate science. Climate only changes where we look. Until we look, the climate hasn’t changed. When a tree falls in the forest it only makes a noise where there is someone there to hear it.
Yes Ferd; sound or noise is like ANY of human’s six senses; it is ALL in our heads.
Hydrogen Sulfide emits no known emanation of any kind, that makes us think it smells like rotten eggs. It does react chemically with our nose sensory surfaces, and create the idea of a stink in our brains.
G
This is silly sophistry. Of course hydrogen sulfide does not emit any “emanation”–it is hydrogen sulfide, and it excites our olfactory patches directly. Hydrogen Sulfide “smells” like hydrogen sulfide because it is hydrogen sulfide. The olfactory patches do not lead to any “idea” in our brains beyond possible identification; they merely detect the presence of molecules for which we have shape-and-charge detectors. This may lead to further ideation, but this has nothing directly to do with the olfactory patches and their output signals. Notice that we can still detect hydrogen sulfide even when we have never smelt it before nor known the name for it.
The idea that the object to be detected does not exist until it is detected or tranduced into another psychological object (or data form) is ludicrous. This is parallel to the tree falling in an otherwise deserted forest–it still generates compression waves in the air that would be detected by our ears if present; the ears do not detect “noise”, they detect sound waves, which may or may not be identified as noise. Please do not confuse the signal to be detected by an instrument (or set of nerve endings) with the percepts that may be associated with that signal through higher-level brain functions.
So you’re saying a falling tree DOES make a noise even when no one is there to hear it. Who knew?
They like to call it global when it suits them and then use the old N. hemisphere argument when they dismiss the RWP and MWP and LIA. They conveniently forget that most of the warming now is N. hemisphere too. Then, they turn around and use N. hemisphere like in this paper and call it global. Only they can decide when N. hemisphere is global and when it is not.
“No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming” Denier!
also reminds me of the authorities when they want to railroad someone. The press conference announces “there is zero evidence that the defendant is innocent.” when in fact there is zero evidence period. exactly as they did with Soon.
The peak warming of the latest millennial solar cycle occurred in about 2003
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
Trends should be plotted up to and post 2003 to see what is really going on.
For forecasts of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling which should bring us back to the depths of another little ice age at about 2650 see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
This link should show more detail
When all you can make is BS then that is all you have to sell.
Funny how large areas of North America and Russia show cooling. Funny how the warming is mostly confined to large areas of the Arctic where there are no sensors.
If the CO2 caused warming is global, why do large areas of the land surface show cooling? Surely the land will heat faster than the oceans due to LW radiation, because the land does not circulate like water does. So why are we seeing cooling of the land? Could it be that something else is going on, unrelated to CO2? Something not predicted by CO2 Science? Something not understood by current theories?
Is it possible that in their rush to blame CO2 for every climate crime, the climate police overlooked some important evidence? Did they fail to notice the fingerprint of natural climate change in their haste to find the CO2 fingerprint? Or did they simply trample the evidence in a clumsy attempt to prove their prime suspect guilty?
“If the CO2 caused warming is global, why do large areas of the land surface show cooling? Surely the land will heat faster than the oceans due to LW radiation, because the land does not circulate like water does.”
I ask myself this same question all the time!
Dave in Canmore
March 5, 2015 at 7:02 am
“If the CO2 caused warming is global, why do large areas of the land surface show cooling?
Surely the land will heat faster than the oceans due to LW radiation, because the land does not circulate like water does.
I ask myself this same question all the time!”
—————————-
Perhaps because there is no more warming, global warming, ……. perhaps because .the end of it is already triggered, and a cooling has started. Perhaps that is why large areas of land surface show cooling.
The above phrase can be put in a different way or context like:
If CO2 caused cooling is global, then large areas of the land surface will show cooling.
Surely the land will cool faster than the oceans, because the land does not circulate like water etc……:-)
cheers
” Funny how the warming is mostly confined to large areas of the Arctic where there are no sensors.”
Yes. As i mentioned below, I do not think anyone should rely on GISS as authoritative.
ferd, “Funny how the warming is mostly confined to large areas of the Arctic where there are no sensors.”
Well, I think there are enough to show that it is warmer in winter than it was. It is certainly not warmer in summer at 90N and I don’t think anyone is claiming it is. When it goes cold again it will still be as’ warm’ in summer, just cold as a witch’s Tweet in winter.
The one source of warmth to the Arctic during the winter is the Gulf Stream. This is your reason for decline of sea ice extent.
Mann is a denier. The IPCC acknowledges the pause/hiatus.
That a CO2 rise will cause global temperature rise is a seemingly intuitive, yet completely erroneous, conclusion. It is based on a superficial scan of basic chemistry/physics, incredibly limited in its appreciation of the many many variables and their contributions to the big equation. It is pseudo logic being based on relations between a preferred, selective minimum of data and a superficial, limited, substandard application of science principles , Seemingly counter-intuitive, for many, yet more deeply and widely considerate of the scope, the scale, timings and inter-dependencies, the temperature rise causing CO2 rise, essentially due to lesser ocean uptake of CO2, ultimately offers a much more satisfying, bigger picture, consistent and robust scenario to me.
I have not seen any proof that the CO2 rise is causing the temperature to rise. Have I missed something?
How can Mann or anyone talk so seemingly authoritatively on climate until that one fact is established. Shouldn’t everyone start with “if CO2 causes temperature to rise, then blah blah bleat bleat..”
I will not pretend that there is proof that the CO2 rise is causing the temperature to rise.
However you can consider the following.
We have reliable CO2 atmospheric concentrations starting in 1959 to 2014 from Mauna Loa Observatory
We have GISS Global Temperature Anomalies (TA) for the corresponding years.
Plotting TA vs. CO2 for these years and running simple linear least squares regression analysis we get a correlation coefficient (R squared) value of 0.87. This is very good and certainly justifies looking into CO2 as a factor for the increase in temperature.
But looking at the TA data, we see that the TA numbers begin to change around 1990.
The R squared value decreases to 0.63 if we take the data from 1990 to 2014. Not great but not bad against CO2 still a factor.
Again looking at the TA data, we see that the TA numbers between 1998 and 2014 or better yet from 2001 and 2014 are just about stable.
The R squared value for 1990-2014 is 0.26. Obviously not indicating any important relationship between TA and CO2.
Doing this you will be automatically said to be “cherry-picking”. OK. So the only solution is to wait for Mother Nature to prove or disprove CO2 as a factor. It “looks” like CO2 will continue to increase. Now I don’t know about temperature anomalies. If this “quasi stable” temperature condition continues, or slight cooling starts, the difference between actual temperature and the models will continue to steadily increase and we will have to remove CO2 from a driving factor.
I see that M. Mann is now “cherry-picking”. Global warming is NH!
Correction. It should be R squared value between 1998-2014 is 0.26
rd50:
Any chance you can post here a chart of the running R^2 value from say, 1959 to present seen through a 10 year window? It must have been pretty good at some +points now and then, and -points at others.
The fundamental problem with the models is they assume the correlation is positive and high at all times. Admitting it is not, sometimes, means that at -point times it is exaggerating to claim that the high numbers offer any ‘proof’ at all.
The Team must have calculated the implications of this already. If they did, and found their major arguments about constancy are completely undone, they are forced to suppress the research and defend the models as the are.
If there was a chance to squeak out a plausible outcome that still had lots of warming at the end of this century, they would have crowed it from the rafters. They have not, which means any proper investigation of the pause as an accommodatable fact of life is anathema, in the strictly religious sense – it must not be believed. I’ve love to see the research Mann didn’t report, and the scenarios he didn’t dare show us.
I have seen various claims about the R^2 value of CO2 v.s. Temperature. What I have not seen is a ‘passing window’ version of the long term record. From what I have seen, a 500 year window looking at the ice cores would show strong negative values at each ends of the ice ages. All of them, and no better correlation would be found near the ends of mini-ice ages.
If we are heading into a mini ice age with CO2 rising to 800 ppm (which it at least technically possible, based on resources) all the Team will have left is the tatters of, “It’s gonna come back and bite us”! By then we will all be dead and gone and no one will care any more.
To Crispin in Waterloo.
Yes I have done this but 10 years is only 10 data points and we get decent correlations only until about 1990 with the CO2 data from Mauna Loa starting in 1959. So this is only 3 periods of 10 years. Not very critical to then look at differences in R squared values between 0.8, 0.7 etc. Fine to do this for exploration and get some ideas but not publication. Accusations would be sure to follow. Already the “cherry picking” comes in if I start 1990 to 2014 R>2 =0.63 or 1998 to 2014 R>2 =0.26
I would see the problem with the models in a different way. The models are not wrong in assuming a constant positive correlation in that they have no choice. The most reliable data is the CO2 data since 1959 and it is constantly increasing. So they cannot ignore this.
Going way back is irrelevant. Anthropogenic CO2 is recent, so the correlation with CO2 must be within all the other temperature drivers as they also existed recently.
I think the problem is they started fitting the models with CO2 as a major driving force and unfortunately temperature is not cooperating.
They cannot change the models without telling us. All their projections are already published. So if temperature stays about the same for another say 5 to 10 years or if we start getting just a little cooling we will have proof that the models are wrong, assuming obviously that CO2 will continue its current increase.
The second factor to consider is the satellite temperature measurements. If I use the RSS data from 1979 you can forget the correlation but the IPCC does not use this. Carl Mears wrote about “The recent slowing in the rise of global temperatures” at remss.com and presented the graph of the RSS data and attributed this slowing to a combination of factors but never mentioned that temperature was not following the constant CO2 increase, as it should. At one point this will have to come out. It is after all the only reason for the IPCC request to stop using fossil fuels; that the increase in temperature is due to an increase in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels.
Should we be looking at the log of the CO2 concentration vs temperature anomaly (TA)? If we do, then the R2 will be higher. At least I think it will. But that still does not prove a relationship, only a correlation that prompts inquiry.
rd50
March 5, 2015 at 9:22 am
If I have not misunderstood your point, I actually have seen through your comment that the increment of CO2 from 1990 to 2014 have caused a cooling during that period while compared to the longer period.
You still have managed to keep CO2 as a factor, or I copletelty have misunderstood you and the point made.
To John Andrews.
My range for CO2 from 1959 to 2014 is 315 to 398 ppm. If I take the log the range becomes 2.49 to 2.59
Now the temperature anomalies range during this period is -19 to +68 (divide by 100 to get this in degree Celsius). So taking the log CO2 will not work.
[Divide by 100 to get to deg C? .mod]
To whitten.
If I run a least squares linear regression analysis between two variables I will get a straight line and a value called the correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination (R squared) between 0 and 1. Perfect correlation is 1, all the data points fall on the line. It deteriorates from there to 0, data points scattered all over and obviously no correlation between the two variables.
What I get as given above and repeated below:
1959 to 2014 I get 0.87. This is very good and I must consider CO2 as a factor for increasing temperature.
1990 to 2014 I get 0.63. This is OK (anything above 0.5 would be OK with me) to consider CO2 as a factor for increasing temperature but obviously not as good as 0.87.
1998 to 2014 I get 0.26. This is too low to consider CO2 as a factor to increase temperature or to decrease temperature. During this period, CO2 is continuously increasing as in earlier, but there is no longer an increase in temperature and this period has been called the “pause” in temperature increase or slowing in temperature increase.
The models assume that CO2 will continue to increase and temperature will increase, but unfortunately temperature increase is no longer happening. So we now see the beginning of differences between the predictions from the models and the actual temperature. Why this is happening, I have no idea.
The magicians’ own classification of their art comprises three broad types of trick: misdirection, illusion and forcing.
We need a new Penn and Teller review of global warming.
Josh should do a cartoon of Mikey Mann pulling a rabbit out of the hat with hockey sticks for ears 😉
In the natural cycles of climate, we have passed the inflection point. Now we are at or just past the turning point (peak of the curve).
The linear hockey sticks and CAGW models defy logic and nature.
Hold on to your woolies!
Bob,
The global (Giss) trend 1995 – 2014 is 0.1 Deg C/Decade.
That’s about 40% of what was predicted by the models.
If the warming trend is +0.04 C/decade, and the error bars are + or – 0.1 C, then there *is* no statistically significant warming. Mann should know that. He does know that.
This battle over the amount of warming from CO2, whether there is a pause or slowdown in warming and most importantly future projections, which are provided to us with high confidence by some is sort of like a football game at half time.
Highly ranked and favorite, Team 1 had the lead from early in the first quarters and scored several touchdowns quickly, while team 2 generated little offense. The dominant team asked that the game be called, then as there would be no point is wasting everybody’s time playing 3 more quarters.
Then, in the 2nd quarter, the team that was behind scored a couple of touchdowns and the game became much more interesting as the results of the actual 2nd quarter stats showing that team 2 was outplaying team 1 in several areas.
Team one continued to insist the game be called early and continue to use the results from the 1st quarter as evidence that they had already won.
The next decade in climate science may be like the 3rd quarter of the football game. Actually, we can’t know what we are going to learn and how long it will take to learn it but with so much not known about natural cycles, feedbacks and CO2 effect, figuratively speaking, we my only be at half time and those that have been insisting that the game is over for the last decade, show they are less about learning more and more about being right.
How much more damage will be done over the next two quarters, though?
Like a pugilist coming back from a round one knockdown to win on points over 12 rounds.
It would appear to me that referring to a “global” hiatus or global temperature hiatus makes no sense without also clearly noting the areas (on a at least continental basis) where the exceptions exist . A hiatus does not exist even in North America . Temperature anomalies here are actually declining. We should get off the global kick and start using at least continental based figures . Lumping things globally misses the fact that there are exceptions and these exceptions are often not given or noted to the public giving the public the false impression that the event is truly global . We saw with the so called 2014 record annual temperatures press release where there were clearly major exceptions that were not clearly explained.
Data are fun, Part 2: I went to the GISS LOTI site and grabbed a couple of very rural sites to check. I used our old friend Cedarville, CA again, and Cumberland 2, in rural mountainous Western Maryland. Using the adjusted GISS LOTI data for both stations, the trend is zero going back to 1985-86,
That’s 30 years of a pause, using GISS data, at rural sites with absolutely no UHI effects.
If it’s “global”, or even “Northern Hemispheric”, warming, shouldn’t it be apparent everywhere? At least to some extent?
“If it’s global, shouldn’t it be apparent everywhere?“. Well, no, and you can see that if you turn it around like the warmists do. They know that if you break Earth’s surface into enough parts, then there will always be at least one part that behaves as predicted, and that part can then be used to support your case. That’s why, for example, we hear continually about the Arctic, with no mention of the Antarctic. So, while your two rural stations are very interesting, you need more data and/or analysis to make a global case.
As Elaine would say in Seinfeld, “It’s all about the infilling.”
I would like to see an independent auditing of the NCDC and NASA GISS “data set” adjustments. The Skeptical Science explanation for the adjustments only makes me more suspicious of what they are doing. Allowing the very people who’s livelihood depends on the existence of man made global warming to make arbitrary adjustments to the temperature measurements that tell us if there is global warming is like allowing an insurance salesman to adjust disaster frequency data that he shows you try to sell you insurance.