In the much ballyhooed 2008 NOAA “State of the Climate” report on climate change they state, concerning the climate models, something quite relevant to the issues raised by the new story in the UK Daily Mail:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said in 2009:
“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming.”
(h/t to Tom Harris)
Or how about this:
Climategate’s Phil Jones ‘insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said’ in 2012
‘Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
‘In other words, though 5 years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years’ h/t to Climate Change Dispatch.
Regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post:
There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.
Yet, today, we see evidence of the goalposts being moved again as the met Office tries to paint this lack of warming “plateau” as being insignificant:
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.
So we are at 16 years, soon to be 17 years. What happens when we hit 20 years?
Either the models are worth something or they aren’t. In this case it seems they aren’t.
See also:
The Mail On Sunday And The Met Office
by: Dr. David Whitehouse
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You’d think they’d all be happy that ‘global warming’ has stopped -all by itself, naturally, without the need to pour in countless more trillions of dollars into a non-problem so that we could use that money to do something useful instead? wouldn’t you?
__________________________________________________________________________
Except that some idiot talked the Haida Quaii into paying him to dump 100 tons of iron sulphate into the ocean off the Queen Charlotte Islands off the coast of British Columbia, Canada, to enhance fisheries and attract “Carbon Credits”. Course the only real carbon credits are likely to be the million dollars the Haida Quaii paid him for the “experiment”. So now it can be claimed they are Geoengineering the climate to keep it cool /sarc off ….http://saltspringexchange.com/list/100-tonnes-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-off-haida-gwaii/
‘Can I see the dragon?’
‘No, it’s invisible.’
‘Can I feel it?’
‘No, it is non-corporeal.’
‘Can I measure the heat of its fiery breath?’
‘No, it breathes heatless fire.’
Could someone please tell me what real world observations have actually agreed with the models or predictions of the last few decades. Have they got anything right?
Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Politicians take notice of this expert advice: stop worrying now after this past 15 years of flat lining in the average global temperature.
Skeptics also notice: no down ward trend for a total of 15 years: don’t worry.
Ahhh … but it does have ‘a signature’ *; IR Spectroscopy, which cannot be denied …
Nice try.
.
See also “The OCO”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
* Like water vapor does.
.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
A radical suggestion… … Try What Works:
Despite increasing atmospheric CO2, there has been no significant global warming for approximately 15 years.
The basis for all the failed predictions of the IPCC and global warming acolytes is the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a strong driver of global temperature. This failed hypothesis should be shelved indefinitely – it is unlikely that the further passage of time will provide any real supporting evidence for CAGW mania.
Some of those in the “skeptics” camp HAVE made successful predictions. For example, we wrote in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
The basis for this successful (to date) prediction is the hypothesis that climate change is predominantly natural and (irregularly) cyclical. This hypothesis could provide a reasonable basis for a rejuvenated approach to climate science that has actually demonstrated some predictive skill.
I know, I know – what a crazy idea! 🙂
David Ball says:
October 15, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
————————————————–
Ha, Brilliant Dave!
We’re all check mated though. Really. We’re all screwed. And this is a Chinese proverb I think and if it isn’t it should be. Al Gore is miles ahead of us. Because:
no one. NO ONE, can kill a dead snake!
David Ball says:
October 15, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
——————–
Ha. Love it. Brilliant Dave!
I must say, We are all screwed though. Al Gore is miles ahead of us. He knows that no one……NO ONE…..can kill a dead snake!!!!
The spin on the story in mainstream Canadian news today:
“Some skeptics of global warming have been pointing to British data that a London newspaper claims shows no warming since 1997. But the United Kingdom meteorological office and Weaver said the claims are misleading.
“I don’t know what data they are looking at,” Weaver said. “2010 is the warmest year. 2005 is the second warmest year.”
According to NOAA, all of the top ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1997, when the skeptics claimed global warming stopped.”
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-temperatures-matched-record-for-hottest-september-again-1.996307
“Skeptic” doesn’t at all describe the more sensible contributors to the discussion about natural climate variation. Far more importantly, I take strong issue with the ever-so-casual ignorance of nature’s power & beauty, which is universal:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
+
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
=
http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif
(slow animation of preceding pair)
SCD (solar cycle deceleration) from:
monthly resolution sunspot numbers
Paul wavelet with:
grain = Schwabe (~11 years) (pattern robust even if not carefully tuned)
extent ~= 64 years (pattern robust even if not carefully tuned)
wide support span (serious, capable parties actively doing the calculations are welcome to inquire for technical details)
While appreciating & respecting nature’s dominating power & beauty, we need to determine the nature of bounds on recent (since ~1997) nonlinearity arising from polar hydrology regime shifts.
Jim,
When can we see the dragon?
Being a denialist (in the catastrophic sense of AGW) and a big fan of WUWT, I have to express my confusion at this 16 year bug-a-boo. I downloaded the HadCrut3 temperature anomaly data and only if you use the extremely warm El Nino in 1997-1998 can you make this claim. If you take any time before mid 1997 there is a positive temperature anomaly. If you chose mid 1992, for example, the anomaly is 0.25 over 20 years. The temperature is up about 0.1 deg C from mid 2000. So I’m confused. For a 16 year anomaly we need to wait until 2017-2018, no?
Firstly the extreme warmists regarded at the time the 1997-8 El Nino as evidence of extreme warming. They can’t just take that back now and say, “that was natural variation”. They made their bed on that one.
Secondly, the 16 year period is to 95% confidence not a fluke. If we haul it back a year or two we are still more likely than not to have the models invalidated. In fact 10 years of flat-line is difficult to explain in terms of some predictions.
Finally, if we take your example of 0.25 over 20 years, then we have a temperature rise, sure, but it is not catastrophic. We have almost two centuries before we reach the “dangerous” +2°C. That won’t do in the alarmist world. They need to show considerably higher rates than that.
Don’t lose the pea under the thimble. They need to show much more than that the world is warming. It has to be accelerating (good luck with that) and catastrophically and caused by CO2.
Soon NOAA will be saying actually it needs to be more time before we can conclusively etc …
You chaps just don’t understand, do you?
There is a scientific consensus concerning the length of time you need to wait to see if a non-warming trend is significant.
The formula is L = C + G
where
L is the length of time you need to see a lack of warming
C is the length of time the Current non-warming trend has been occurring
G is the number of years until your next research grant is approved.
Anyone who denies the accuracy of that formula is obviously in the pay of big oil.
So I guess we’re all going to be around for a while? Good to know. A new generation of climate scientists will get to bury the old one and they will have learned to avoid political thralldom at all costs. Nah.
So just what is the kick-off year for global warming to really take off? 2005 or 2010? As I recall in 1998 reading some magazine while in line at the grocery store, that was the year of all years to send global temperatures onward and upward to infinity, now it is but an honorary PhD on Tom Karl’s wall. I’m confused.
It is becoming clearer now however. Every few years, lower the previous high temperature that was called the hottest year ever, then raise the current or recent year to make it the hottest.
The really neat part is Met O predicted in 2007 years following 1998 would be warmer and by golly they’ve done it! When 2014 rolls around, lower 2010 and possibly 2005 as well just in case, but always make sure 1998 is lower than the average of the previous decade, then place 2014 where 1998 used to be. Pretty soon the trend will go in the proper direction. Woo hoo! I love science.
It’s funny that Phil Jones would be worried by a lack of warming for 15 years. Given that he believes in catastrophic warming you’d think he’d celebrate it not be worried by it. But the truth is that he doesn’t want the models to be wrong, it’s more important to him to be right regardless of the consequences.
Either the models are worth something or they aren’t. In this case it seems they aren’t.
Even one strike against a theory invalidates it and sends it back to the drawing boards. GCM models as used for climate fitting and predictions have another six strikes against them.
Unfortunately climate scientists using these models do not seem to know the scientific rules of success in modeling theories. And the hoi polloi follow them like lemmings.
The other six strikes are documented periodically in this blog:
2)There is no positive reinforcement, sensitivity is much smaller than assumed. The models fail in predicting infrared flow in the troposphere.
3)Humidity is not increasing in the troposphere as is necessary for the feedback hypothesis
4) The missing energy is not hiding in the oceans
5) The models can only reproduce anomalies when fitting and differ widely on real temperatures in the records.
6) hydrological predictions of the models are no better than random number generators
7)No CO2 fingerprint in the troposphere
Jim– CO2 ONLY absorbs IR around a very narrow frequency range of 15 microns.
When CO2 levels exceed 540ppm, any additional CO2 has almost NO added forcing effect as this very narrow 15 micron frequency becomes saturated, and photons of this frequency simply get blown out to space…
H20 absorbs almost the ENTIRE IR frequency range (not CO2’s 15 microns, however), so this saturation effect isn’t a factor..
Oh, and H20’s atmospheric concentration averages around 30,000ppm compared to CO2’s 390ppm… Yawn….
According to papers by Lindzen/Choi, Douglas/Christy and a recent one by Asten, the GROSS CO2 climate sensitivity is theorized to be between 0.7C-1.4C (much less than IPCC’s “best” estimate of 3.2C).
Between1850-1998, the Earth’s temperature rose about 0.65C. Taking the lower-end climate sensitivity number of 0.7C, and given 40% of CO2 doubling has already occurred, approximately 0.28C can be attributed to CO2 forcing and the remaining 0.37C can easily be attributed to the strongest 73-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years taking place between 1933-1996. When these strong solar cycles ended, so did the warming trend. Moreover, the weakest solar cycle in 300 years starts 7 years from now…. Oh, my…
It’s becoming more and more obvious that CO2 is merely bit player in Earth’s complex climate process. For political purposes, CO2 took center stage for awhile, but it’s being booed off stage as it’s not acting as advertised…
Only a climate scientist could be worried by “lack of warming” – showing how out-of-touch they are with the practicalities of everyday life. I could make an astrological forecast with as much significance as our (UK) official climate predictions.
Now expect the BBC to come up with a defence of their pals at the Met Office – but don’t expect real balance as per the BBC’s Charter.
While I’m deeply impressed with the scholarship of all the participants on both sides of this “heated” debate, an ignoramus like me can only be very grateful that it is happening; while I can see the human race adapting to a warmer world, I’m not sure how today’s world would cope unscathed with another ice age. If any of the ongoing research helps prevent that, I will be most grateful.
That 18th Law of Scientific Research:
Any prediction made about an event significantly far enough into the future … will never be remembered to be proven incorrect.
But the United Kingdom meteorological office and Weaver said the claims are misleading.
“I don’t know what data they are looking at,” Weaver said. “2010 is the warmest year. 2005 is the second warmest year.”
According to NOAA, all of the top ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1997, when the skeptics claimed global warming stopped.”
When they lie like that – claiming that warm = warming – you know that they know that they are as full of $#!^ as you know they are.
not so fast…a new alarm:
16 Oct: Sydney Morning Herald: AAP: Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist
Australia’s chief Antarctic scientist says claims by climate experts about environmental changes in the southern continent are not alarmist.
The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) told a Senate estimates hearing today “rapid changes” taking place across the icy land mass would have significant impact on global climate.
Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels were occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history, chief scientist Nick Gales said…
“That is the engine room of a large amount of world climate, so changes there are important.”
He dismissed suggestions the claims were alarmist, adding scientists were “by definition” sceptics and based their conclusions only on testing data.
Australian scientists “overwhelmingly” report on the basis of their findings, and strive to make clear statements about uncertainties.
There was “no doubt” scientists were observing rapid environment and climatic changes in Antarctica, Dr Gales said…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/antarctic-climate-facing-rapid-changes-chief-scientist-20121016-27ohg.html
not striving hard enough, Dr. Gales, if there’s “no doubt”.
Do I know think that the world has stopped warming? No because the world temperature has no meaning to me , if I was told that the temperature in a certain place had reached 30 degrees c then I would know from my own sensing of the world that I would feel warm if I was at that place.The only way I can make sense of a world temperature is if I compare it with another world temperature and it will be cooler or warmer depending on which world temperature it is compared with .The world temperature can never be cold or warm to me because I can never sense that, it has only a statistical meaning , but some people in this debate such as the media try to give this statistic a personal meaning so they invent climate catastrophes that follow from small rises in global temperatures relative to a particular year.