From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 9 November 2010
It seems probable that 2010 will be in terms of global annual average temperature statistically identical to the annual temperatures of the past decade. Some eminent climatologists, such as Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, suggest the global annual average temperatures haven’t changed for the past 15 years. We are reaching the point where the temperature standstill is becoming the major feature of the recent global warm period that began in 1980. In brief, the global temperature has remained constant for longer than it has increased. Perhaps this should not be surprising as in the seven decades since 1940 the world has gotten warmer in only two of them, and if one considers each decade individually the increase in temperature in each has barely been statistically significant. Only when the warming in the 1980’s is added to that of the first half of the 1990’s does the change exceed the noise in the system.
But what does this 10-15 year temperature standstill mean?
For some it means nothing. Ten to fifteen years is too short a time period to say anything about climate they would argue pointing out that at least thirty years is needed to see significant changes. They also point out that this decade is warmer than the 1990’s and the 1990’s were warmer than the 1980’s and that is a clear demonstration of global warming.
I know few who would argue that we don’t live in the warmest decade for probably a millennium and there are now few who would argue that the period of warming ended about a decade ago leaving us with a plateau of annual temperatures. However, there is information in the decadal structure of the present warming spell that can say something about what is happening.
All would agree that the global climate is changing constantly within certain limits due to the combination of anthropogenic and natural factors. The manmade factors are postulated to be responsible for climate change whereas the natural factors are taken to be agents of climate variability. The additional greenhouse effect caused by mankind’s emissions is a unique climatic forcing factor in that it operates in one direction only, that of increasing the temperature. If that is the case then something has been cooling the planet. We can say something about what is cooling the earth. The key point about the greenhouse effect in this context is that it depends upon one factor – the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
In the past decade the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm and using those figure the IPCC once estimated that the world should have warmed by at least 0.2 deg C. The fact that the world has not warmed at all means that all the other climatic factors have had a net effect of producing 0.2 deg C of cooling.
But there is more. The counterbalancing climatic factors have not only compensated for the postulated AGW at the end of the decade they have kept the global annual average temperature constant throughout the past 10-15 years when the AGW effect wants to increase it. The key point that makes this constancy fascinating is that for every value of CO2 there is an equilibrium temperature that is higher the greater the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, the higher CO2 concentration at the end of the decade exerts a stronger climate forcing than at the beginning of the decade.
Mirror Image
This makes what has happened in the past decade all the more remarkable. Because the greenhouse effect wants to force the temperature up which in the absence of a cooling influence is what would have happened, the fact that the temperature has remained constant indicates that whatever has been cooling the planet has had to increase in strength at precisely the same rate as the CO2 warming in order to keep the temperature a constant straight line.
This means that for 10-15 years the combined effect of all the Earth’s climate variability factors have increased in such a way as to exactly compensate for the rise in temperature that the increased CO2 would have given us. It is not a question of the earth’s decadal climate cycles adding up to produce a constant cooling effect, they must produce an increasing cooling effect that increases in strength at exactly the same rate as the enhanced greenhouse effect so as to keep the earth’s temperature constant.
Can it really be the case that over the past 15 years the sum total of all the earth’s natural climatic variables such as changes in solar irradiance, volcanoes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation, all of which can change from cooling to warming over decadal timescales, have behaved in such as way as to produce a cooling effect that is the mirror image of the warming postulated by the anthropogenic climate forcings from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, from the changing water vapour, from tropospheric ozone, and from a clearing aerosol burden?
Am I alone in thinking that in the dynamically changing global climate this looks like a contrived, indeed scientifically suspicious, situation?
Is it a coincidence that the human and natural factors balance out this way? I am reminded of a line written by Agatha Christie: “Any coincidence”, said Miss Marple to herself, “is always worth noticing. You can throw it away later if it is only a coincidence.”
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
“”””” Smokey says:
November 10, 2010 at 11:46 am
BillD,
Tamino?? You’re kidding, right? L. Ron Hubbard would be more scientific.
If you want a trend since “the turn of the century,” here’s one: click It nicely explains the recent cessation of warming.
Hey Smoky,
Thanks for that nifty graph of solar irradiance; that’s the first time I have seen that information. It’s amazing that during the Maunder Minimum, not only did the sunspots vanish; but the TSI variation did too. I’ver heard or read, that the sun still did go through its 22 year magnetic cycle during those years; but I can’t point to any citation of that. Perhaps Leif Svalgaard could enlighten us.
I love correcting graphs; that one is a keeper.
Henry@Samoht, BillD, Rob Vermeulen (a Dutchman?) & &
Most scientists agree that the warming was about about 0,7 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. Can you feel it? Can you bring me a calibration certificate of a thermometer that is 100 years old? More importantly, how does this warming compare to the past? Compared to the Medeviel Warm Period (MWP) for example, – 1000 years ago, when Greenland was really green – it is not so bigl!!. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Take some time to absorb the information given in those graphs. From this point onwards, after studying those graphs, I became skeptical of global warming as such being a problem.
the question that I want to ask you, is this: how do you know for sure that the warming observed (and the stalling in warming over the last 10-15 years, as discussed here ) is not just part of a natural process of warming and cooling that has been going on for ages and ages? If you cannot think of an answer to that question, then better look here:
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
David Whitehouse’s article starts off with two major assertions which are supposed to underpin the rest of the article. But they are both demonstrably incorrect. The first one:
Most readers here seem to feel quite content in believing that, but how many realise that this is cherry picking perfected to a fine art (because the original question was a ‘loaded’ one to begin with, and most of Dr. Jones’ response is intentionally omitted whenever it hits the blogosphere)? Others have already stated this, but it bears repeating. Because I happen to know the background behind why Dr. Jones was asked this particular question in the first place:
Of course, the only part of Dr. Jones’ answer that usually gets repeated, because it suits some people’s ideology to do so, is the “Yes” part. In fact, the trend is just short of being statistically significant by a mere percentage point or two. What that means in practicality is that instead of there being a 1 in 20 chance that the Earth is *not* actually warming (that what we’re seeing is ‘noise’), there’s something like a 1 in 19.5 chance. Not a lot of difference at all.
Turns out that for that interview, the BBC solicited questions from prominent climate skeptics. That particular question was carefully framed by Richard Lindzen and Lubos Motl specifically to make Dr. Jones look bad. The year 1995 was chosen as a starting point not because it makes a nice round 15 years ago, but rather because if you start even 1 year prior to that, in 1994, then the warming trend of .12C/decade *is* statistically-significant to the 95% level. Lindzen and Motl were, of course, well aware of this. Motl happily discusses his disingenuousness (as he is prone to do) on his blog here:
Insignificant warming trends: why 1995 was chosen
In fact, if you want to look at statistical trends regarding climate *properly*, you need to examine trends of at least 22 years in length. Because that is the time for one complete solar irradiance cycle. So you see, you can’t just use statistics in isolation. You have to combine statistics with a knowledge of climate science.
I will refute the 2nd incorrect assertion that David Whitehouse made in the article in another post, or this one will be tl;dr.
Following on from above, the second demonstrably incorrect assertion that David makes in the article is this:
Right. From the IPCC 2007 report:
Projection of Future Changes in Climate
(my emphasis added)
So the IPCC actually said, in *2007* no less: “For the next two decades”, whereas David said: “In the past decade”. Huge difference. The IPCC is talking about the future (from 2007 to 2027), while David is living in the past (2000 to 2009). A blatant misrepresentation of what the IPCC is saying. Intentional? Hmm.
Please come back to us in 17 years and then we’ll see what the global temperature average is looking like if we continue on with Business As Usual.
So with two colossal gaffes like that leading off the article, you’ll excuse me if I didn’t notice all the “subtle nuances” and “clever irony” in the rest of it.
HenryP says:
November 10, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Super stuff Henry. Thanks for the link…”God is good! He meticulously made earth to be at the exact right temperature for life to exist and develop and then He gave us the ability and means to stop earth from falling back into an ice age again….. ”
Certainly food for thought. Did God forget to set the thermostat 50,000 years ago?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01009.x/abstract;jsessionid=FF1B12860D24A364D1045F93D2101629.d01t01
Steve Metzler’s posting is a disgrace. Accusing David Whitehouse of deliberately misleading, and that after he sets up an Aunt Sally argument and accuses David Whitehouse of doing something he didn’t.
Dirty pool. You owe him an apology Mr Metzler.
I believe the answer to Mr metzler’s points are dealt with earlier in the thread of comments and in no way dilute Mr Whitehouse’s point. It is Mr metzler that is misrepresenting the science, though of course he is doing it unintentionally.
john f
Apologise for *what*, exactly? Exposing misinformation for what it really is? Please demonstrate, with evidence as I have provided, that anything I have stated above is incorrect.
john f says:
November 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Firstly, point #2 has *nothing to do with science*. It is just a demonstration of how David Whitehouse misquoted (deliberately or otherwise), the IPCC 2007 report.
Point #1 has to do with the statement made by David that:
Again, that is misrepresenting what was actually said by Dr. Jones. He said that there was no *statistically-significant* warming in that period, but that it only *just missed* being statistically-significant. He did *not* say that “the global annual average temperatures haven’t changed for the past 15 years”. I’ve also explained how Richard Lindzen and Lubos Motl deliberately phrased the question for the BBC so that in answering honestly, Dr. Jones would be made to look foolish to the public. Did you even read the entry on Lubos’ blog that I linked to earlier?
So please explain to me how you imagine that my points are dealt with “earlier in the comments”. Could you be more specific?
That graph of Smokey’s is interesting, but there is a problem. It shows that since 1950 the solar radiation only fluctuated by the very small, 0.05%, variation seen in the 11 year solar cycle. Thus it cannot be responsible for the warming of the 70’s and 80’s, and so it is illogical to claim that the continuation of that pattern is responsible for any recent change. The original paper from which the data in the graph is derived points out that the solar variation is out-of-phase with the global temperature variation.
Going back to “no significant warming since 1995” can I point out another logical problem. The trend from 1995 to 2009 is positive but just outside the (entirely arbitrary) 95% confidence level. However from 1994 to 2009 it is within that 95% level, and if you include what there is for 2010, it is again within that confidence level. So are people really going to claim that there was significant warming from 1994 to 2010 but not from 1995 to 2009? Splitting a time series of events into shorter sections and analyzing them separately is a good way to reach misleading conclusions.
jimmi says:
November 10, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Thus it cannot be responsible for the warming of the 70′s and 80′s…”
Quite the contrary, system responses typically have a lag time from input to output. How long does it take water to boil from the time you put the kettle on the stove?
“…95% confidence level”
I HATE it when I see people applying trend regression confidence intervals, which only have meaning for actual trends corrupted with independent measurement errors, to a complex time series with cyclic and autoregressive components.
jimmi,
I posted that graph to answer BillD’s post, where I said:
How about trying to show that what we’re observing now is not natural variability? Here are a few charts to get you started on the right track:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5 [December temperatures, global]
click6
click7 [Time to panic?]
click8
click9 [IPCC model predictions vs raw temp observations]
click10
Trying to pick out the minuscule effect of CO2 is like trying to pick the flyshit out of the pepper. Natural variability completely explains the climate, without the necessity of adding an extraneous variable like CO2.
But of course taxing “carbon” is easy; taxing sunlight isn’t. So the alarmist crowd has no choice but to blame CO2 for natural temperature fluctuations. And they have no choice but to ignore the scientific method which, if it were followed, would completely destroy their demonization of harmless and beneficial CO2. So they ignore the scientific method, and go with always wrong models rather than testable, empirical observations and raw data.
Bart,
Yes there will be a delay – but 50 years?
Re “95%” , to an extent I agree – this type of analysis should not really be done on a time series which looks like (to first approximation) a steadily increasing term superimposed on a cyclical component. But having said that, nearly all those diagrams which plot a trend over a short part of the sequence (and there are lots of those on this site) are basically meaningless, as was the question to Jones, who should have had the wits to realize it.
Smokey,
Make up your mind what the solar activity looks like – the first graph you offered had the activity basically constant from 1950, and I can trace this data to a real scientific publication in Geophysics Letters. Your “click8” graph above plots something called solar activity against arctic air temperature (why just the arctic – the sun affects everywhere), but the solar variation does not have the same time dependence, nor the same magnitude as the first graph. Where did this come from, and have you checked it against an original publication?
95% confidence level? What is this, psychology? Actual physical science operates in the 5-sigma range. That tends to rule out all the data-selection and myriad other biases which so totally dominate “climatology”, the delusional wannabe-science.
I’m not suspicious of the balancing situation, David. There is still movement going on. You can still get short up and down trends for the last 13 years, depending on where you take them. But the average is very close to flat. What is remarkable is the inability of the warming community to assign any attribution to the cooling factor that is cancelling the CO2 forcing. Of course no one really knows what the level of CO2 forcing is, but if one uses the IPCC’s estimate of .2C per decade, then one needs to explain what has been masking it. If one can’t do that after the fact, then one is missing a piece of the puzzle that is critical to creating a meaningful model.
Re: solar forcing at Maunder Minimum.
The solar forcing from these studies works out to be about -0.5 W/m2.
You take -3 W/m2 solar radiation at the Maunder Minimum, times .25 for the spherical earth, times .7 for the albedo effect (= about -0.5)
Doubling CO2 is +3.7 W/m2 (even Monckton and Lindzen agree with this number).
Maybe it makes sense to expect doubling CO2 to have seven times the effect on climate as the Maunder Minimum. This is just comparing the forcings, not adding feedbacks to either. -0.5 W/m2 should only provide about 0.15 degrees cooling without feedback, so it seems there must have been positive feedback if the LIA is to be explained by solar effects, so if that had positive feedback why not CO2?
Bottom line: doubling CO2 is seven times the Maunder Minimum in forcing terms.
john f: “I believe the answer to Mr metzler’s points are dealt with earlier in the thread of comments and in no way dilute Mr Whitehouse’s point.”
From my reading, David Whitehouse’s argument is:
1. From 1995-2009, the climate showed no warming
2. Therefore, natural climatic variability must have presented a precise “mirror image” of anthropogenic forcings
3. This is too coincidental to be credible.
In order for this argument to work, (1) needs to be true. Is it?
Whitehouse certainly seems to think so: “…suggest the global annual average temperatures haven’t changed for the past 15 years; …the global temperature has remained constant for longer than it has increased; But what does this 10-15 year temperature standstill mean? …the period of warming ended about a decade ago; The fact that the world has not warmed at all; …have kept the global annual average temperature constant throughout the past 10-15 years…; …the fact that the temperature has remained constant…”
That’s a lot of different ways of saying no warming. And yet the person whom Whitehouse enlists in support, Phil Jones, says there was a .12C/decade warming trend from 1995-2009.
On that count at least, Whitehouse’s argument fails.
Jim D: ‘Bottom line: doubling CO2 is seven times the Maunder Minimum in forcing terms.’
There are two flaws to this argument. Firstly net CO2-AGW could, through feedback via the water cycle, be very different from that anticipated by the basic ‘forcing’ change. That feedback can be positive or negative. Miskolczi has proposed an absolute control system maintaining constant IR optical depth in which case it’s extremely negative through reduction of the component of OR absorption due to [H2O].
Secondly, the effect of the sun on climate is much more complex than just the simple forcing change. It occurs via variation of cloud cover.
To model such events is not easy. We’ll see the results far earlier by the real time experiment!
jimmi,
When you say “make up your mind,” it is clear that your own mind is already made up and closed tight. Once again, you have avoided my question:
Every link I posted above confirms the natural variability of the climate. CO2 is such a small bit player that it can be completely disregarded; its effect is too negligible to measure.
Until you answer my question above, you will have to wait to be educated regarding your own questions. The answers are trivial. But first — the onus is on the alarmist contingent to falsify the null hypothesis of natural variability. So far everyone who has tried to falsify that basic hypothesis has failed, but by all means, step right up and see if you can falsify the null hypothesis. As climatologist Dr Roy Spencer says: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
I posted those graphs for your benefit, because you complained that “since 1950 the solar radiation only fluctuated by the very small, 0.05%, variation seen in the 11 year solar cycle. Thus it cannot be responsible for the warming of the 70′s and 80′s…”. Solar is not the only forcing; it is one component of climate variability.
Each graph I posted had different starting dates, going back to the early 1800’s. None began in 1995, because you complained about that date. I have plenty more charts showing the same thing, all you have to do is ask for them. But first, answer the question, if you think you can. Use testable, empirical evidence, not GIGO computer models or conjectures. Show that the current temperatures are not due to natural variability. Base your answer on the scientific method, paying attention to Popper’s dictum on testability.
Avoiding answering questions here simply shows you have no credible answers. And cherry-picking 2 out of ten charts to [incorrectly] argue about is not adequate; you will have to show why every one of them is wrong — and then I’ll provide you with a few dozen more showing natural climate variability; the cause of current and past temperature fluctuations.
Henry@Tim Williams
I’m not sure what you mean. I think the records clearly show that catastrophic “climate change” were really the ice ages. There was no food to keep animals larger than 44 kg alive. Global warming is not bad. Not catastrophic, in any case. Did you read my blogg?
Global warming eventually must cause more evaporation (because 70% of earth is water) which causes more clouds which causes more rain which causes more plants to grow, if there is enough carbon dioxide. If you think about it long enough, then water and carbon dioxide are like your mother and father. The rest is….? You say co-incidence?
To prevent ice ages you must prevent the snowcover from widening. In an ice age, instead of earth absorbing the heat from the sun, snow is reflecting the sunshine.
I think there are or there will be simple techniques, like covering snow with carbon dust, to prevent earth from falling back in the ice age trap.
On a related note, I have created a video presentation about whether the last 15 years of temperature data contradicts global warming (i.e. “Phil Jones admits global warming has stopped…”). I thought it might be of interest to folks:
http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/07/global-warming-has-stopped.html
For those who prefer information, rather than propaganda, here are the five year average temperature anomalies from the two satellite (UAH and RSS) and two surface (HADCRUT and NASA GISS) temperature series:
Years……………UAH………..RSS…..HADCRUT……NASA GISS
1980-1984…. -0.047C… -0.060C…. +0.072C……+0.166C
1985-1989…. -0.050C… -0.070C…. +0.091C……+0.186C
1990-1994…. -0.032C… -0.022C…. +0.162C……+0.240C
1995-1999…. +0.147C.. +0.189C….. +0.322C……+0.386C
2000-2004.. +0.203C.. +0.254C….. +0.413C…..+0.480C
2005-2009.. +0.238C… +0.263C…. +0.416C……+0.546C
As can be seen, all four series show a continuing increase in average global temperatures from the 1980s through to the present time.
David Whitehouse’s article is based on a false premise – it’s as simple as that.
Slioch says:
November 11, 2010 at 8:10 am
Unless I am missing something, your numbers for Hadcrut from 1995 to 2009 in 5 year intervals: +0.322, +0.413 and +0.416 just do not add up to what Phil Jones said about the interval from 1995 to 2009, namely that the trend was +0.12. (For argument sake, I am quite prepared to accept this as true and not deal with the significance aspect.) Phil Jones was also asked about spikes in the temperature record, and all spikes were very similar at 0.16, with the steepest spike being from from 1975 to 1998, a 24 year period, and having a value of 0.166.
Steve Metzler says above: “In fact, if you want to look at statistical trends regarding climate *properly*, you need to examine trends of at least 22 years in length.” Fair enough; this time of 24 years meets that requirement.
Steve Metzler says the report in 2007 says: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
My problem with the projection is this: Why would the IPCC project a warming that is higher than the steepest rise over the last 130 years? It is my understanding that even the IPCC says the effect of additional CO2 is logarithmic (Law of diminishing returns). The IPCC also says the CO2 should be increasing exponentially. So the net effect of CO2 increasing exponentially and the effect on temperature being logarithmic COULD be a linear increase in temperature. However the graph on page 6 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/co2_report_july_2010.pdf
indicates the actual increase in CO2 is linear. So if the effect of added CO2 is logarithmic, the projected increase in temperature would be much less than for the maximum 24 year period over the last 130 years.
So the bottom line is that the projected increase of 2 C over the 1750 level is AT LEAST a century away. We have lots of time to adapt, if necessary.
Slioch says:
November 11, 2010 at 8:10 am
Nice data trick. Now, show the sliding average, and your aliasing problem will go away.
Tamino isn’t impressed.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/hey-david-whitehouse-why-is-the-sky-green/
Four temp records all show warming trends (2000 – 2010 Sept/Oct).
HenryP says:
November 11, 2010 at 7:05 am
Henry I love your blog….”I am thinking that if people see too much snow heaping up around them, they will do something about it to try and melt it down. God is good! ”
I’ll certainly be out there with my blow torch as we continue plummeting into the next ice age.