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The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result.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.
Good post.
It seems that if I want to stop global warming I should be out the back burning tyres and coal to increase soot, makes sense to me. I will do anything for the environment
Part of the spin the Australian Government is using to sell it’s carbon dioxide tax is that China is a a reformed and environmentally responsible country, closing down dirty coal power stations to reduce “carbon pollution”. The truth is of course that they are building new much bigger, more efficient, clean coal power stations to replace old dirty ones. In the paper referred Robert K. Kaufmann et al. claim growth in Chinese power stations have been responsible for a large growth in sulfur emissions since 1998. But unless China’s new “clean” coal stations are emitting more sulfur per unit of coal consumed than the old “dirty” ones, then the proportions of sulfur and carbon dioxide emitted should be the same, or one would expect relatively lower in sulfur in the case of the new clean stations. The use of high or low sulfur coal could influence this of course but overall it would seem reasonable to assume a similar sulfur levels.
If we are to accept that the paper’s conclusions are “consistent with the current understanding” (i.e. retrospectively adjusted virtual reality) it seems we must accept also that Chinese efforts to reduce air pollution from their many new “clean” power stations are not only less effective than emission control technology of the latter decades of the twentieth century, but in fact much worse, certainly in terms of sulfur.
Maybe this heralds a new climate change hypothesis – “the enhanced sulfur cooling effect”.
Just blogged on this….. thanks for the info.
I say YES, you say NO – who’s to know the truth?
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/i-say-yes-you-say-no-%e2%80%93-who%e2%80%99s-to-know-the-truth/
Anthropogenic or natural forcing
If all of the anthropogenic forcing (sulphur and CO2 radiative) is disposed of and replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO than similar result is obtained.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AorN-F.htm
(Reuters) – Smoke belching from Asia’s rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur’s cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.
So now they tell us that Global Warming was caused by the “Clean Air Act”
Cuthbert, are you saying that the peer-reviewed paper must be incorrect because it is inconsistent with a statement made on Wikipedia?
OMG, humans cause climate NOT to change! It’s unprecedented! Climate always changed in the past.
What can we do about this Anthropogenic Climate Stalemate?
thingadonta says: “Temperatures (T) didnt rise between 1998-2008 because the PDO shifted back to negative…”
Through what process could the PDO be responsible for the flattening of global surface temperatures? The correct answer is, there isn’t one, and that contradicts your statement.
Tenney Nahum says:
July 4, 2011 at 07:02
There is another Brazil? We are going through one of the coldest winters in decades. Loss of crops, deaths from cold, large areas with freezing temperatures, maximum of 24 C in the southern Amazon. Where do you live?
M.A.Vukcevic says: “If all of the anthropogenic forcing (sulphur and CO2 radiative) is disposed of and replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO than similar result is obtained.”
Please describe the “natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”. That is, please describe the process/mechanism through which the PDO could be responsible for the rise and fall in global surface temperatures. The correct answer should be, there isn’t one.
@jim Ryan, Exactly the opposite in fact. I’ve been lurking here for some time and I see more and more of what are considered in Wikipedia terms “Reliable sources”. They have peer reviewed papers that say one thing, you have peer reviewed papers that say slightly different.
I’m no expert on climate science I’m an engineer by trade but I’m also quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia. I see articles that have been edited at will by the likes of Connolly to name one, using these same guidelines of reliable sources and venerability that have allowed them to word the climate change articles as they see fit. Though I lean to sceptical with my beliefs about some of the claims, I’m often left wondering with the expertise that is on these talk pages why isn’t there a concerted effort at balancing the argument, if the sources meet the guidelines then why isn’t it in there?
Wuwt is bandied around as being the blog in the know so to speak, and I often read on these pages the howls of consternation about the perceived indoctrination of kids to climate change and my thought is what is the first port of call for people who want to find out more information. Wuwt is good but it ain’t that good and certainly isn’t average Joe Bloggs first stop off point, it’s Wikipedia.
I didn’t write my first post very clearly, but if there are peer reviewed sources that say different and that 2010 isn’t the second hottest year on record, why not have at it and get the information where it’ll really make a difference.
Back to lurking
edit my last please that should be verifiability not venerability cheers
I refer to the beginning of the conclusion of the paper:
<>
Excuse me! Does not contradict the hypothesis? Surely its not an hypothesis! Surely they mean supposition?
I’m appalled by the authors. Clearly these authors are just being politically correct. How the hell could they state “… does not contradict the hypothesis”!
Bob Tisdale says: July 5, 2011 at 3:57 am
Please describe the “natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”. That is, please describe the process/mechanism through which the PDO could be responsible for the rise and fall in global surface temperatures. The correct answer should be, there isn’t one.
It is not the PDO data as such that is involved in any way in the graph as shown by black dashed line:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AorN-F.htm
it is in fact a process to which the PDO most likely is related as shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO1.htm
There are well known physical processes operating in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic, well capable of affecting the climate events in both oceans, through the oceanic currents heat transfer, in the relevant areas (as mentioned above). First differential (difference) of the datasets correlates well with climatic indices known as the PDO and AMO.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
How the PDO and AMO are calculated I am not certain and it is not very important to me; one thing is certain that if proved that my unprocessed data are relevant (and subsequently given appropriate numerical weighting), then climate science will have good base from which to start appraising the true natural drivers of the climate change.
I have collected lot of historical data dispersed through various institutions, all publicly available some on line, some in various printed publications, put it all together and developed the datasets referring to the N. Atlantic and N. Pacific. This is a purely personal effort, at personal expense, so I am under no obligation to release details for time being, since I am preparing a more extensive publication.
Similar attitude is taken by the ‘CLOUD’ project researchers from CERN, who may not be self financing as I am.
Bob Tisdale says: July 5, 2011 at 3:57 am
…….
My post:
Anthropogenic or natural forcing
If all of the anthropogenic forcing (sulphur and CO2 radiative) is disposed of and replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO then similar result is obtained.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AorN-F.htm
It states :
replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO
not:
replaced with natural forcing by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO
M.A.Vukcevic says: “There are well known physical processes operating in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic, well capable of affecting the climate events in both oceans, through the oceanic currents heat transfer, in the relevant areas (as mentioned above). First differential (difference) of the datasets correlates well with climatic indices known as the PDO and AMO.”
Saying there are “well known physical processes” does not describe how the PDO is responsible for the rise and fall in global surface temperatures as your graph represents. Saying there are correlations doesn’t do it either. Also, the North Atlantic is not represented by the PDO, so including it in your discussion appears to be misdirection–smoke and mirrors. What’s the process or mechanism through which the “PDO forcing” could be responsible for the rises and falls? It’s a simple question. Describing the process or mchanism should be just as easy.
Mr. Tisdale
my post is very clear, no PDO data is used!
It seems mother Earth is struggling to reach the tipping point.
My biggest worry is what happens after this global anthropogenic warming is shown to be mistaken. Previous polluters, like the ones that nearly destroyed the Willamette River, will return to their old ways of “throwing tires into river”. Mercury levels are still so high in the main channel that one must limit their intake of fish and be very diligent in removing the fatty strips from the fillets.
This bandwagon has been the worst thing that could happen to the once diligent effort that was being made to clean up the planet.
@Ari,
As you know, Brazil is an enormous country, with many different regions and their respective climates. I live in Vitória da Conquista, Bahia, which is near the plateau of Chapada Diamantina. The altitude here is somewhere between 850 and 900 meters, depending on the source.
Southern Brazil is indeed experiencing very cold temperatures. But many parts of the rest of Brazil are experiencing high temperatures. The Brazilian meteorological page appears to be offline right now, but it will come back. This is the link to my city’s weather forecast:
http://tempo1.cptec.inpe.br/cidades/previsao.do?parameter=tempo&id=5694
Stu,
Way to cherry pick which dataset you used to get a linear trendline……let’s use all the datasets together.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997.5/plot/wti/from:1997.5/trend
In logical contortions that would do Squealer proud, the Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264) now says that coal-burning cools the atmosphere, and the good authorities that have proven this state there is no longer room for scepticism.
Polistra, (polistra says: July 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm), I’m glad to find someone who shares my view that CAGW is a new Ptolemaic system, an intellectual conceit to defend political power. I have to disagree however and say the Ptolemaic system is “wrong”, as it is inconsistent with everthing else we observe about gravity and momentum.
anthropogenic global cooling 🙂
Tenney Naumer says:
July 5, 2011 at 6:50 am
South, Southeast and Midwest and southern Amazonia are braving the cold. Your region (northeast) never gets cold. Summer (now) means dry, winter means rain. alias minimum of 12C today did what for the people of the region is freezing.