Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that "global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008" – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)

click to enlarge

The Kaufmann et al 2011 paper (Note: Michael L. Mann is a co-author, not the same as Michael E. Mann of hockey team fame) was embargoed until 8PM GMT (12PM PDT) today, and we have an advance copy thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser .

Here is the PDF file: pnas.201102467

The headline from the abstract:

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

But in the conclusion:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

From the GWPF:

Comments by Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008.

It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.

Dr David Whitehouse

The Global Warming Policy Foundation

e-mail: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org

=============================================================

My take on it from the paper – “We don’t know what’s going on, but we aren’t going to admit that” – Anthony

============================================================

From Ryan Maue:  Mainstream media coverage example headline:

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study — from Reuters

blah blah blah — and the conclusion quotation:  “Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain’s Met Office.

Well, hells bells.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Michael Jankowski

Any journal publication (and even many press releases and news articles) that doesn’t fit into the usual scaremongering seems to have a disclaimer that notes man-made global warming (or climate change) is real and happening. It is like it’s a requirement for publication. “Ok, you are allowed to present your findings, but we need you to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”

George E. Smith

Well as I have said many times, some of the highest altitudes on planet earth occur up in the mountains. It is supposed to have something to do with a maximum being a preponderance of higher values; whereas a minimum, is more often accompanied by a preponderance of lower values.
So it is to be expected that the “warmest decade” on record, would have some of the highest temperatures.

CoRev

UH OH, when the AGW super stars start admitting no increase, we know it must be really bad.

Latitude

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result.
=============================================
But anything that does not show sea levels rising, temperatures increasing, etc
is unexpected and obviously wrong…..
So the excepted way of correcting it, is to make it match the computer models.
That’s what they did with satellite sea levels………

Bystander

‘It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998.”
That is not what the paper says. The paper has a cut off date of 2008, it is not commenting on tempatures since then and given that it is 2011 the 2008 cut-off is out of date.

Bystander

“As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.”
In the front summary of the paper.

Ed Scott

RayStevens – The Global Warming Song

Sean Peake

I see another double-down coming: the world is cooling because of the burning of fossil fuels and to stop it, we must restrict their use and tax accordingly.

David L. Hagen

In summary: Anthropogenic cooling counters anthropogenic warming.

“anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role.”
“In-sample simulations indicate that temperature does not rise between the 1940’s and 1970’s
because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions rise slightly faster than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.”

Now if we could just explain how the Little Ice Age countered the Medieval Warm Period . . . we might get more universal consensus on climate.
Robert (Bob) Carter provides clues in: Climate: The Counter Consensus
and his Dec. 2010 lecture and presentation.

JohnH

How can they keep a straight face writing this garbage !!!!!

Josh Tay

Hit the nail on the head once again. Accurate, restrained, polite. Well done Dr Whitehouse.

John Baglien

The statement from Kaufman et al 2011 (p 1 of 4): “The hypothesis that the post 1998 period is consistent with the existing understanding of anthropogenic climate change is evaluated with a test statistic that evaluates the null hypothesis that the long-run relationship between global surface temperature and radiative forcing is unchanged after 1998.” turns statistics and logic on its head. The “long-run relationship between global surface temperature and radiative forcing” as modeled is the hypothesis. Basically they are saying: “we can’t say with 95% confidence that our models are wrong” rather than demonstrating with 95% confidence that their hypothesized models are correct. John Baglien

Mike

“Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface
temperature.”
You are taking paper that explains why you are wrong and then just asserting it says you are right. Orwell had a name for this.

Scott Brim

Anyone taking the mainstream media’s reporting over the last decade as gospel would believe that each year of the previous decade has been warmer than the last; and that the trend is sharply upward. So I am surprised to see this paper being published at all, given that these same climate scientists have spent years strongly pushing the message that temperatures remain on a sharply upward curve.
Given that the climate models which predict global warming based upon increasing GHGs are constructed of layer upon layer of interlocking assumptions — assumptions which are still held to be true by climate scientists regardless of the acknowledged existence of this decade-length span of contradictory temperature data — then it is no wonder that the authors can’t embrace the most logically-considered explanation: the atmosphere’s actual CO2 sensitivity isn’t what climate scientists claim that it is.

phlogiston

If as they state there is an “increase in the warming effect” of “rising greenhouse gas” then the predicted effect is quadratic warming. On these terms then even sustained linear increase (which is not happening) would represent a falling away from predicted warming. However this extravagent claim is probably more sloppy language than a considered statement..
What also emerges from this is a convenient flexible device to explain any climate change and blame it on humans. Is there warming? Its caused by CO2. Cooling? It can only be smokestack particles.
This is the classic “good God, bad God” religious formula by which politically connected prophets of doom have terrified and controlled the populous for millenia of human history.
Nice work if you can get it.

chris y

New climate science paper is released.
M. Mann is a co-author.
Null hypothesis- Any climate paper co-authored by M. Mann is garbage.
Hypothesis- this is a scientific paper with merit.
Conclusion based on details already in evidence- hypothesis has been falsified.
next.

timetochooseagain

“The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).””
In point of fact, the statement, which references the IPCC, is predicated on the assumption that climate models contained realistic internal variability. But the failure of models to be able to predict such a hiatus ahead of time shows that this assumption was wrong. To just assert that it is not a contradiction is to say something as ridiculous, basically, that climate is allowed to be cooled by natural variability but not warmed. Which is evidently what these people believe.

I was going to make a lame joke about the ever-increasing number of epicycles, then I realized the analogy doesn’t work. The Ptolemaic system wasn’t wrong, it was just vastly less elegant than the Galilean system. You can still choose the Earth as the center of the solar system if you’re willing to do a lot of unnecessary math.
The CO2 system is wrong. Disproved. Falsified. This is an EX-science. No amount of math will make it right.

rbateman

Thier model works only if all CO2 is manmade, which it is not, and CO2 greenhouse warming is linear, which it is not, and no other forces that are acting upon the planet have any consequece, which is growing stupider than previously factored.

David Whitehouse
They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.
And what would that ‘influence’ be? And how could they [or would you] use that?

Ian Forrester

CoRev said:
“UH OH, when the AGW super stars start admitting no increase, we know it must be really bad.”
Just which “super stars” are you referring to? I’m afraid that it seems that you people are confusing 2 completely different “Michael Manns”.
I’m afraid the jokes on you.

Les Johnson

I note that Kaufman et al state that it warmed in 2009 and 2010, but give no figure, nor even cite the source of this apparent warming.
Of course, the advantage is that it can’t be falsified.

TRM

“Sean Peake says: July 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I see another double-down coming: the world is cooling because of the burning of fossil fuels and to stop it, we must restrict their use and tax accordingly. ”
Back to the 1970s for those of us old enough to remember it 🙂

pat

And we could throw in 2008-2011 just for laughs.
The Warmists have a very difficult time maintaining the hypothesis of an ever increasing global temperature. Obfuscation of data will not be tolerated by every scientist regardless of their political bent or greed. The two predominate explanations for the missing incline in temperature are oceanic storage and the posit that a natural cycle is masquerading the heat. The problem with both is that these explanations were not incorporated into the models. So their Models are simply wrong. Wrong as in worthless.

Ian Forrester says:
July 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I’m afraid the jokes on you.
Ha ha ha. Poor Michael L. Mann must rotate being mistaken for Michael E. Mann [hockey-mike]

AdderW

Michael L. Mann vs. Michael E. Mann ?

Theo Goodwin

‘But in the conclusion:
The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”’
When climate scientists attempt to deploy the concept “scientific hypothesis” they reveal only the grossest ignorance. The statement in quotations marks above cannot qualify as a hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing can be inferred from it about particular events in the future. An example of a genuine scientific hypothesis is Newton’s mathematical formulation of Kepler’s Three Laws. Using them and a GPS, you can predict the phases of Venus to within minutes; that is, you can make precise predictions of particular events indefinitely into the future.
Some will attempt to defend the so-called hypothesis quoted above by interpreting it as a statistical hypothesis and lowering the standards. Doesn’t work. Genuine statistical hypotheses are deterministic and employ objective probabilities. Mendel held that children of a pure light-eyed parent and a pure dark eyed parent would have children whose eyes turned out dark by a ratio of 3 to 1. That statistical hypothesis about populations is testable and falsifiable.
All one can say about the statement in quotation marks is that it is a hunch. One can follow Bayes and use subjective probabilities to improve one’s betting behavior, but you will never get from there to science. In any case, the authors are praying that they are not demonstrably wrong rather than betting that they are right. Comment on their understanding of prayer can wait for another occasion.

TomRude

Kaufmann of Arctic temps fame?

David L. Hagen

Kaufmann et al. actually support the null hypothesis of natural variation detailed by Syun-Ichi Akasofu:

We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. . . .
The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and re-move them from from the present global warm-ing/cooling trend.

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Natural Science,
Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010), doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149
To argue catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, Kaufmann etc. need to quantitatively distinguish anthropogenic changes from the natural trends clearly documented by Akasofu.

the fritz

Michael Jankowski said
Ok, you are allowed to present your findings, but we need you to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”
———————————————————————–
-Big progress : some times ago it was
Ok, you are not allowed to present your findings, if we need to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”

Latitude

It’s not the same Mann….
but besides that, they are going to really tic a lot of people off
…they just said that it wasn’t warmer air holding more moisture

Theo Goodwin

Climate scientists are forever confusing genuine scientific hypotheses with other kinds of statements which are not theoretic statements at all and have no place within a theory or set of hypotheses. Consider the following:
‘The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”’
As shown above, the statement quoted cannot serve as a scientific hypothesis. Rather, it is a guiding principle of research. It is a statement of their commitment to preserve the claim that, in my paraphrase, “anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations caused most of the increase in temperature” throughout all of their research. As such, it is a statement of values and belongs to policy analysis but not science. Sad to say, but I have found not one pro-CAGW climate scientist, so-called, who knows the difference between theoretic formulations and statements of value.

William

The authors of the above paper appear to be incapable of considering the obvious based on the observations. The IPCC extreme warming position is fundamentally incorrect. (Not surprising as the IPCC started with an agenda and the subsequent work was to support the agenda.)
The observational fact that there was an unexplained step increase in planetary temperature 1994 to 1998 and the fact that planetary temperature 1998 to 2008 has flat rather than increasing as predicted) indicates there are likely multiple fundamental errors in the general circulation models which are the basis for the extreme warming IPCC forecast. The step increase in planetary temperature 1994 to 1998 correlates with a step reduction in planetary cloud cover.
There are cycles of cooling and warming in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with multicycle solar magnetic changes. There is data and supporting analysis in published papers that the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. There are published papers that correlate the late 20th century warming with specific solar parameters changes (magnitude and intensity of solar wind bursts).
There are also papers that correlate planetary cloud changes and with the planetary temperature changes. There are papers that explain the mechanisms and provide specific data and analysis to support the mechanisms: 1) solar wind bursts (which removes cloud forming ions by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions by Tinsley`s electroscavenging mechanism) and 2) changes to the extent and density of the solar heliosphere which in turn modulates the intensity and energy content of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) that strike the upper atmosphere and creating MUONs which in turn travel through the atmosphere creating multiple ions which create clouds through ion mediated nucleation.
It will be interesting to see watch this story unfold. There has been an abrupt interruption in the solar magnetic cycle. In the past the planet cooled when there was there an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. How will the IPCC supporters explain a cooling planet?

DeNihilist

Nice to see science is actually working. i.e. they looked at the real world, and are now positing reasons for the lack of upward warming. Could be right (sounds logical) or maybe not. But I thought that this is how science was supposed to work?
Kudos to this group of climate scientists for at least trying to figure out more of the climate puzzle.

igsy

The desperation mounts. This is setting the stage for AR5 to upgrade the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) of aerosols from AR4’s “medium to low” (direct aerosols) and “low” for the cloud albedo effect (all aerosols).
(Anyone who might be superficially impressed with what appears to be an rare outbreak of humility by IPCC authors in admitting a medium/low understanding of something, should note that “low” is still an exaggeration with respect to the more honest position of “nil” )
Already HadCRUT temps are outside sensible confidence intervals for the multi-model A1B (see Lucia’s), and things won’t be going their way any time soon, particularly as 2011 is shaping up to be a fairly cold year globally. So they simply have to go for the aerosols. Nothing else will keep the show on the road.

RockyRoad

Dang Chinese–if they’d just clean up their soot, their CO2 would let “A” global warming continue like the models said. Leave it to the Chinese to mess things up.
(Does this let those dang Chinese off the hook? Maybe Australia should start burning some of their own coal rather than ship billions of tons of it to China–and they should take the soot collectors off their furnaces, too!)

Jimbo

Let’s see what happens in 2011 and the coming years. A resumption of warming? Cooling? Undecided? We live in interesting times. ;->)
If it cools then get ready for a raft of papers blaming soot (………..insert excuse), no matter how long it cools. Trust me.

David Falkner

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).
Isn’t that backwards? Watch, I can do this, too.
The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to a combination of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd increasing the amount of lightning necessary to kill da wabbit and Leif Svalgaard’s infamous ‘little green men'(14).”
Anyhow, if they really have found that there was no increase, then this part is interesting, “The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors…“. How much did these natural factors contribute to warming?

John A

There is something seriously wrong in Greenhouse Gasland, where a claim that rising carbon dioxide causes temperature rise, EXCEPT when it doesn’t when its caused by natural variation.

Who you gonna believe – our “consensus” and models, or your lying eyes the data?

Crispin in Waterloo

Basically they are saying: “we can’t say with 95% confidence that our models are wrong” rather than demonstrating with 95% confidence that their hypothesized models are correct. John Baglien
++++++++++
John, that is superbly stated, and well worth repeating 95 times.
As I cannot say with 95% confidence that what you say about them is untrue, you are therefore completely correct until further notice.
Can I please have some funding now? I am more than 95% certain that I want some money. I don’t mind from which side of the debate it comes. I 95% guarantee you that it will be appreciated.

Bill Marsh

Sadly, they pretty much all have to do that to have any hope of achieving more funding.
I work at the NSF (not in a scientific capacity) and, from time to time, the scientists that get funding from NSF present information about their findings ( it’s a wonderful job perk) to anyone at NSF who wants to listen. I listened to a young PhD presenting his research about temperatures in Antarctica last year. His findings showed that temps in certain areas of Antarctica were actually dropping, not increasing. I felt really bad for him because, at the end of his talk he seemed to feel obligated to say something like, “My research shows that temps are dropping, but, I must be wrong because it disagrees with the idea of global warming increasing temps.”

Doug Allen

Please repeat after me. We’ve had 300 years of warming since the Al Gore’s ancester invented the themometer, three hundred years of uneven warming. During each of those past three centuries we’ve had many, many hottest years ever and, at least, one or two hottest decades ever. It happened again recently. What a surprise!

Bill Marsh

Didn’t Dr Mann say that if temps were unchanged (or didn’t increase) for a period of 10 years then he would have to consider his theories of ‘Global Warming’ falsified. Now we have over 20 years of ‘stable’, not increasing temps, where is Dr Mann?

Anyone fancy trying to get the zealots of Wikipedia to finally admit that it isn’t currently warming?
Global warming is -> Global warming was!!!

Uh, no, there was no El Nino in 2010. There was a very strong La Nina. That is why the fact that 2010 was at least as hot as 1998 was so extraordinary.
REPLY: Ah, no Tenney, sorry, you are wrong as usual.
Many press reports said that 2010 was a near-record breaking year despite the cooling influence of a La Nina later in the year. What was omitted however was mention of the fact that the reason why the year was marginally warmer than previous years was because of the warming El Nino at the beginning of 2010.
Contrary to press reports the evidence is that 2010 was a year no different from all of the years 2001-2009 with the exception of a moderate to strong El Nino that elevated temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere’s Spring, and a cooling La Nina later in the year.
NOAA talked about the rapid onset of La Nina here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/11/with-a-rapid-onset-the-strongest-la-nina-since-1955-56/
And here, you can see that 2010 started off with quite a strong El Nino:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-and-Nino34-thru-May-19-2010.gif
And here is a story we carried from NASA JPL entitled: El Niño’s Last Hurrah?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/the-current-el-nino-still-hanging-on/
Here’s the image from March 2010:
March 2010 El Nino
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your vision. We like to be entertained by you. – Anthony

Alex

This is 2011: All predictions made by the warmists since 1980’s have gone wrong. When are they going to admit this? When are the politicians going to realise this? When is the main stream media going to wake up and tell the world?

gallopingcamel

I did’nt get much encouragement from this paper given that it is imbued with hubris. When you see statements like the one below you realize that these modelers are just as deluded as the others:
“……..devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in
the climate system.”

Stephen

here is some additional information:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stock/files/PNAS_SI_Apendix_Final.pdf
Doe anyone know why it is listed under the Harvard economics department?

Ongoing caution to commenters equating the two Michael Manns mentioned in this post! Remember that ad hominem has backsplash; Much as many in here abhor the ongoing circus of assertions and retractions that climate science seems to be good at, deriding on the basis that this Dr. Mann is the Hockey Mann is horse hockey. Someone mentioned calm restraint above. That would be rather good to keep in mind, methinks.