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
Alexander,
I would like to see the science that says responses to solar forcing and CO2 forcing can more than compensate for the factor of seven difference, or even that one forcing can have positive feedback while the other has negative feedback. If clouds, water vapor and ice cover are the main feedback players in both cases, how would they care by which mechanism the earth is being warmed?
Did anyone explain why the 0.5 W/m2 we got coming out of the Maunder Minimum gave us about 0.5 degrees warming? Seems like a feedback factor around 3 was in play, which is very much like the one proposed for CO2.
Tim,
If you read my blogg carefully,
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
you would have noticed that I donot the deny the possibility that there is some warming caused by human activities.
I just don’t believe it is the carbon dioxide doing it.
There simply is no evidence for that.
You made a joke of it, but removing snow is actually one of the human activities that could be a cause of global warming: the snow on the roofs and streets is quickly removed with heat and salt whereas normally it would stay for days or weeks on end deflecting light from the sun. Thus, something that people do naturally is in fact acting against nature. Now did anyone actually calculate how much “forcing” this forced removal of snow causes?
HenryP says:
November 11, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Good point Henry. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if nobody has made that forced removal of snow forcing you mention. They’d have to account for artificial snow blowers in that calculation of course. I personally think the climate models have underestimated the albedo forcing of male pattern balding in northern europeans myself and will be writing to James Hansen to express my concerns.
Tim Williams says:
November 11, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, in a manner of speaking, with northern hemisphere human male balding acting as a negative forcing helping to cool the Earth.
I just wonder if the fashion for men not to wear hats any longer might have been part of the conspiracy and fully expect to see an article in WUWT about the subject in the near future.
My own particular concern is the increasing trend for shepherds to breed in more white into their black and white collie dogs. Shepherds have always needed collies with both black and white bits in order to be able to see them more easily. The black bits show up in the snow and the white bits in the dark, so they can see them in both conditions, but with less and less snow there isn’t so much need for the black bits anymore and collies are becoming whiter. Anyone who has stroked a collie dog lying in the sun (I do it all the time) will have noticed that the black bits are hot and the white bits cold. Thus, this change to whiter collies means less solar radiation is being absorbed and therefore acts as a negative forcing countering global warming: global warming leads to less snow, which leads to whiter collie dogs which leads to cooling. I must say I’m surprised David Whitehouse didn’t include this collie dog albedo effect in his treatment of his “Mirror Image” problem.
You guys are funny.
Tamino has a post in response to this WUWT article.
I tried to reply to comments by Steve Meltzer, who posted there the same comments as above here.
I wrote;
The IPCC report of 2007 used temperature data up to the year 2000.
Climate model projections are from the year 2000.
Hence “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected” refers to the period from the year 2000.
The first decade of temperature has failed to reach this projection.
I should have known better, but I was disappointed Tamino didnt publish my comments.
Henry@ur momisugly tony s
well, I did not know who or what Tamino was, so I had a look.
I left a comment under the “Thank God” post
but they wiped that off as well.
Can you believe it? It was just a reference to my blogg, mostly
they must have read it!
Same thing happens at Climate Audit, Sceptical Science etc.
read my (updated) blogg
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
and then you come back to me with the reason as to why you think they do this.
tony s says:
In fact, further reading of that page from the IPCC 2007 report:
Projections of Future Changes in Climate
Implies that the next 2 decades refers to the *2010 – 2030* time frame, because they mention 2030 in the next paragraph:
And since they also mention 1990 – *2005* in the previous paragraph, there’s no way they are starting their “next 2 decades” retrospectively back in 2000. It’s just that both yourself and Whitehouse desperately wish it to be that way, so you can put your negative spin on it. Distort, cherry pick, and quote mine away. When there’s no science behind what you are saying, all you have left is spin.
steve, your vitriol is entertaining but delusional.
Now you have given 2 separate answers 2007-2037 and 2010-2030, and they are both wrong.
The 2030 date you refer to is the period of time which warming is independant of emission scenarios.
The 1990-2005 projection refers to the first IPCC report.
As your reference page clearly indicates in Figure SPM5 of the IPCC report, all projections commence from the year 2000.
I suggest you look at Lucia’s Blackboard which runs a series of statistical comparisons between real temperature data from 2000, and IPCC model projections of 0.2C/decade trends from 2000. They fail.
I know it sounds ridiculous that the IPCC would publish in the year 2007, decadal predictions from 2000, but that is how ridiculous the IPCC is. And they still get it wrong! Then complain that 10 years isn’t significant…
I hope this awakens you to the absurdity
correction to my typo-
your first post stated 2007-2027
oh and I agree with you that there is no science behind this.
As we are talking about fanciful climate model projections
tony s:
Only in the alternate reality that some people here inhabit could “for the next two decades” (written ca. 2007) be misconstrued to mean: “for this decade and the next decade”. It’s pretty clear from the subsequent text that they mean 2010 – 2030. I’m not going to entertain your ridiculous notions any longer.
steve, you deny your own evidence.
for anyone interested in IPCC projections, Figure SPM5 graphically illustrates projections of a minimum 0.2C per decade from 2000.
Whitehouse was correct to state
“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.”
that’s reality
I cannot believe how anyone in their right mind can believe that an increase of 20 ppms in Co2 can possibly have any influence on climate.
They (the IPCC) missed the increases and decreases in water vapor in last three decades (that most probably caused the current warming and subsequent levelling or slight cooling ) and they missed that besides water vapor, oxygen also has an overlap common to CO2 (@14-15 um). They took 1750 as a point of reference and then determined the “forcings” by looking at the increase in GHG’s versus the observed global warming. But… that is looking at the problem from the wrong end. Before you can do that, you must first prove to me that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is warming and not cooling.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
[snip. No ‘denialist’ talk here, per site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
The warming has not stopped. 2010 has ended up being the warmest year on record.
REPLY: Gosh, the year isn’t over yet, November and December data isn’t in yet, and yet you KNOW that “2010 has ended up being the warmest year on record”. Heh, great science there bub.
This is a candidate for quote of the week. So that I can properly attribute it, what’s your name?
– Anthony