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.
The mistake he made is a lot more simple that that. He went by the HadCRUT3 dataset which is no longer in use. The UK MetOffice switched to the HadCRUT4 dataset and is what the original article is based on. Maybe if he starts with the right dataset he won’t have such a problem. Also remember they switched to HadCrut 4 because it is suppose to be better so if their “better” dataset shoots them in the foot it ain’t our problem
Wouldn’t it be nifty if there were a climate model which predicts occasional cooling periods that finish like ski jumps causing temperatures to eventually propel upwards?
That would really be swell. For while anyway.
Then not so much when the upwards is a no show.
My favorite in all of this Revenge of the Nitwits climate science has been the sea rise boogeyman.
IMO it’s been the most asinine observation made. Even here in Oregon the fools claim parts of the Oregon coast have already been lost to global warming sea rise. So the AGW that would cause the sea to rise has already happened?
Yeah sure. It’s just that it’s hard to see when ya go to the beach. Any beech.
It takes a trained Nitwit to see it.
BTW, the Santer paper and its 17 years without warming is junk. It uses statistical techniques to analyse the output of climate models, and as Gavin Schmidt says, you can’t do this, because climate model outputs aren’t samples from a population.
The most you can say from Santer’s paper is, in the average opinion of climate scientists, 17 years is the longest period where natural variability can override GHG warming and result is no significant warming.
Of course, as the predicted warming failed to materialize, the opinions of climate modellers changed and so did their models. The real world didn’t change. Natural variability is the same as it always was.
Why would Phil Jones be worried by 15 years of no warming? That’s just what he wants, to avoid a tipping point or catastrophic warming. Phil Jones must be ecstatic now and he can retire knowing his grand-children are safe from the catastrophe (apart from the actions caused by politicians).
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations”
So a near-zero or even a negative trends of a decade or less that is predicted by simulations isn’t a problem for AGW theory.
But a longer trend which wasn’t predicted at all?
If only they had known temperatures were going to remain flat for this long, they could have adjusted them sooner and a little more aggressively. I’m sure they’ll get right on that now and make sure next years trends are up. There’s still time to salvage “settled science” — unless global temperatures dip too far to hide the decline. That’s the problem with consensus. It can change so quickly when facts become stubborn and refuse to cooperate.
Since we are in a current PDO that will last about another 15-25 years, and as also T flatlines for another 15-25 years, it will be interesting to see their excuses stretch out.
Solar magnetic cycle and the geomagnetic ripple around 2000 were fully in phase, but are currently drifting slowly out of phase. If the last 150 years long correlation holds
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
(see no reason why it shouldn’t) then the natural variability in the N. Hemisphere would suggest, as the phase difference increases, more rapid decline towards the base levels reached in the 1970s. Effect of the declining sunspot count would indicate less intense periodic upward/downward bursts. The critical factor across the decades to come is the phase difference rather than amplitude of the sunspot count.
Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
also see here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Steve from Rockwood says: October 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm
“I have to express my confusion at this 16 year bug-a-boo.”
Me too! All that talk about a comment in a NOAA paper about models, and no-one quoting what the trend actually is.
Here’s WFT on Hadcrut 4. It’s an uptrend of about 0.05°C.decade since 1997. Not zero. Higher from 1996. Even from 1998 (not 15 years) there’s still an uptrend.
Goal post shifting is an alarmist trait. Do not be surprised for this to continue.
“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…”
One look at the link beneath demonstrates exactly that Gales is over the top as well as exaggerating.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Now we will have the same saga we just had at the Antarctic as we have just had about the Arctic Ice, as the seasons change from north to south and the summer rays hit the ice which will ofcourse have the same effect. Normally when applying or exposing heat to ice one would expect something to happen. Let’s se where they take us on this journey, this time.
16 Oct: WaPo: Charles Lane: Liberals’ green-energy contradictions
Al Gore is about 50 times richer than he was when he left the vice presidency in 2001. According to an Oct. 11 report by The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig, Gore accumulated a Romneyesque $100 million partly through investing in alternative-energy firms subsidized by the Obama administration.
Two days after that story ran, Mitt Romney proclaimed at a rally in Ohio’s Appalachian coal country: “We have a lot of coal; we are going to use it. We are going to keep those jobs.” Thousands cheered…
As the Democrats become more committed to, and defined by, a green agenda, and as they become dependent on money from high-tech venture capitalists and their lobbyists, it becomes harder to describe them as a party for the little guy — or liberalism as a philosophy of distributive justice.
Gore’s sanctimony doesn’t help. The erstwhile Tennessee populist bristles at any suggestion that his climate crusade is about money. And, no doubt, he cared about the planet before he got rich. Still, his investments, including in such flops as Fisker, the maker of $100,000 plug-in hybrid cars, create a patent conflict of interest. This hurts his credibility — if not about climate change per se, then certainly about the particular solutions he advocates…
Green energy is not cost-competitive with traditional energy and won’t be for years. So it can’t work without either taxpayer subsidies, much of which accrue to “entrepreneurs” such as Gore, or higher prices for fossil energy — the brunt of which is borne by people of modest means…
For a sense of where this may lead, look at Germany, whose crash program to replace nuclear power with wind and solar is boosting electricity rates. Der Spiegel reports that 200,000 long-term unemployed lost power in 2011 because they couldn’t pay their electric bills…
Small wonder that the United Mine Workers of America — a core Democratic constituency if there ever were one — has refused to endorse Obama in 2012 as it did in 2008. The union hasn’t backed Romney, but he is campaigning hard for rank-and-file votes. That a private-equity baron is getting a hearing in the coal fields should give liberals pause…
Meanwhile, Gore and his partners carry on rent-seeking…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html?hpid=z3
15 Oct: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: German Renewables Fee Rises 47%, Opening Government Rift
Germany’s power grid operators boosted the surcharge consumers pay for funding renewable energy to a record, triggering a rift between two ministers in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet.
The four grid companies set the fee paid through power bills at 5.28 euro cents (6.8 cents) a kilowatt-hour in 2013, up 47 percent from 3.59 cents now. Economy Minister Philipp Roesler wants to lower a federal electricity tax to help counter the increase, he told reporters today in Berlin. Environment Minister Peter Altmaier wants to offer consumers free advice on saving energy instead…
Merkel’s government is seeking to prevent a voter backlash against raising energy costs before the next general election in the autumn of 2013. Last week, Altmaier set out plans to cap subsidies for wind, biomass and solar power that have surged since 2004 when the government guaranteed above-market prices for electricity generated from clean sources…
The total subsidy next year will amount to about 20.36 billion euros, which is paid for by consumers through their power bills. The fee increase will raise the bill of the average German household with 3,500 kilowatt-hours of consumption by 59 euros a year. That impact was inflated by exemptions for big industrial users and leftover costs from the previous year, the operators said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/german-renewables-surcharge-rises-47-opening-government-rift.html
Hi all
It appears that we are indeed in a period of global cooling, temperatures have been (on average) decreasing since 1997, over the current 15 year period. Scientists have indeed been claiming that soon, something of significance will occur – some warming . . . or perhaps increased cooling?
Let us forget for a moment about this silly little interval of 15-20 years that we are so concerned about. Global warming and climate change are about global averages. If climate change was based on individual 15 year measurements, that were NEVER considered as a suite of results – well, we’d probably all be worried about a new ice age. However, this is not how climate is measured. Defined by the World Meteorological Organization, climate requires variables such as temperature, and precipitation to be considered over about 30 years.
So now you may ask, “why are scientists considering climate over a 10 year interval, if trends are better indicated over a 30 year interval?” – the answer is quite simple, 10 year intervals indicate the warming trends conclusively as well.
“So why are we experiencing a 15 year cooling period?”
For this, there is also a simple answer – trends are never 100% constant when it comes to a DYNAMIC system such as the world’s climate. We will never be able to fully, and comprehensively model World Climate, we can only predict. And yes, sometimes these model predictions are incorrect but what is important are the overall trends that are exhibited. By overall, i mean trends that persist from 100 years ago. NOT trends that you have analyzed that refer to a period of 15 years.
Have a look at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/. This is a perfect example of how close-minded examination of a 15 year trend, may very lead to a “Cooling” conclusion – but when the data are considered as a whole, the overall trends are made clear: global temperatures are increasing, and climate change is very real.
Have a nice day.
Goalposts. Soon to be 100 years or whichever year funding runs out.
What they really meant was, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people longer than 15 years.
Philip Bradley says: In reality, the models produce random noise of approximately the same magnitude as natural variations.
That sums it up very accurately and concisely.
A number of parameters are put together and the coefficients adjusted until the result looks something like temperature record over the fitting period. This, not surprisingly fails to match earlier periods as Bob Tisdale has pointed out in detail.
It is also totally fails to get even the general trend right beyond 2000 AD,
How they have the bare-faced dishonesty to continue to pretend that these modles have any relevance for climate prediction is astounding.
Phillip Bratby says:
“Why would Phil Jones be worried by 15 years of no warming? That’s just what he wants, to avoid a tipping point or catastrophic warming. ”
What Prof Jones probably wants is to keep the game going so that he can continue in his nice safe , tenured position until his retirement on an equally well-endowed pension.
He probably also imagines he is fighting for the “cause” of ecology rather than realising all this disingenuous stupidity is destroying the enviromental movement.
enviromental [sic] movement.
In 2010 Phil Jones was reported as having been “suicidal”. Now, ahead of schedule, he is not even worried. I am personally very pleased for him.
I am equally pleased that the planet seems to be recovering nicely from it’s recently exaggerated death-projections.
Nick Stokes: What’s the CI on that slope of 0.05 C/decade? And not just using the errors from the regression, but also using the uncertainty from the original data. I doubt that it’s statistically significant, and even if it is, it’s 1/4 what it’s supposed to be.
Nick Stokes says:
“It’s an uptrend of about 0.05°C.decade since 1997. Not zero. “
Yes, half a degree per century is very scary stuff. …. /sarc
The last 4 Interglacials were warmer than today by up to 5°C! Interglacials only seem to last for around 10-15,000 years, perhaps at beast 20,000 years. The last Ice Age ended around 12,000 years ago, we’re living on borrowed time possibly. There were periods in the last 500 million years when there wase almost 20 times todays atmospheric content of CO2, no Catastrophic Global Warming happened! The models don’t model the Earth in reality, they treat it as a black body which it emphatically is not! They do not predict anything, they make projections based upon flawed assumptions, about thousands of parameters they do no understand either fully or in part, & they expect everyone to believe that they can reduce these said assumed parameters known & unknown, to a bunch of matrices & mathematical formulae! Models are infinitely tunable to the desired result. CO2 is essential for plant growth, is vital for mamalian internal organ systems operations, is an acid buffer in the human blood stream, etc, etc! For every Carbon atom we emit, we emit 2 Oxygen atoms with it! Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, after Helium, Hydrogen, & Oxygen. Carbon is the thirteenth most abundant element in the Earth’s crust!
A true scientist, as any true professional would, when faced with the glaring possibility that he/she may be wrong, display the greatest integrity & honesty & professionalism, & utter the un-utterable words, “I think we may have got this wrong, people!” A charlatan would keep the former ideological belief system going at all costs. To quote Sir Walter Scott in the poem Marmion, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
Although this will never happen in Climate Science, these people should be held accountable for their falsehoods, they should atone for the many who die or be injured in automobile accidents, or in their homes because they cannot afford the heating costs to keep warm, young or old, in severe cold weather events that were supposed to be a thing of the past, when local governments who are forced to pay the state forecasters for their flawed forecasts, who cut salt-grit budgets because snow is a thing of the past & a very rare event indeed, & then have to import supplies at great expense to the taxpayer from abroad to make up the shortfalls! When billions of whatever currency is spent propping up taxpayer funded NGOs, with vast budgets, workforces, etc generating mountains of paperwork with little boxes to tick along with all the other societal hoops the people are forced to jump through, all on the grounds of flawed science, laws & regulations, by officials who are “just obeying orders!”, Now that does sound a tad familier. Oh the terrible dilema the Malthusian Greenalists will face in the coming years, how will we reduce the Global population, do they exterminate 6,500,000,000 by using ordinary natural gas, abundant but expensive, or permit the use of Shale gas, equally abundant but cheap? It won’t happen, no, but one can dream, can’t one?
Mooloo says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm
———————————————
Just because someone makes their bed on a mistake doesn’t mean we should adopt the same strategy.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2012/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2012/trend
The trend is positive. Yes it is a very small trend, hard to explain as catastrophic, but that is not what I’m reading.
Josh says:
October 16, 2012 at 3:17 am
————————————————
Josh, you fell into the same trap you’re making fun of. Rather than highlight temperature since 1979 (I notice you didn’t choose the interval during the 1960s when the earth was cooling or during the 1930s when the earth was warming nicely without fossil fuel catastrophy) plot from 1997 to present – which is the interval under consideration. You will find the trend is positive but very much lower than the average alarmist warming. So why over the past 10 years has the earth not warmed as it should have? What happens if this trend (of almost no warming) continues for another 10 years? Does a 20 year trend of no temperature increase invalidate global warming, or do we need 50 years, then 75 years etc?