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.
Jimbo,
Phil Jones expressed joy over the passing of John Daly because Daly thoroughly — and publicly — b!tch-slapped Jones in this series of emails:
http://www.john-daly.com/cru/emails.htm
Gary, Are you suggesting that the sources of information you cite concerning ancient climates compare with the abundance of detailed info we can collect today concerning the present climate of Earth? I hope not.
ericgrimsrud,
Thermometers measuring in tenths of a degree are not nearly as important as thermometers showing the long term trend, which the CET record shows quite accurately. [This site shows that most modern thermometers are not nearly capable of tenth of a degree accuracy.]
The long term rising temperature trend since the LIA has not accelerated. It is the same, whether CO2 was at a low of ≈280 ppmv, or at the current ≈393 ppmv.
Since the naturally rising temperature trend has not accelerated due to the rise of CO2, the only logical conclusion is that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. Thus, CO2=CAGW is falsified.
Science evolves by self-correction.
The perception of GCM usefulness has reached a critically low level. Their multi-decadal divergence from observed temps has been the underlying reason.
It appears the increasing public and scientific community awareness of the failures of the whole set of GCMs, which are a fundamental key to the credibility of the past and upcoming IPCC assessments, creates easily understandable reasonable doubts about the part of climate science that claims alarming warming by AGW. This is the only the very initial stage of normal scientific self-correction of the alarming warming ‘consensus’/ ‘settled’ climate science position . . . . it will take a while yet for the use of GCMs to fall to a more humble position in the range of tools/methods of climate science. I think it may take another 4 years for the GCM tool usage to be relegated to very limited role in advancing climate science.
There is increasing stress on the scientists who are at risk of losing professional prestige when the evidence shows the GCMs are an insufficient benefit in the alarming warming part of the climate science discourse. The stress creates a defensive posture which further reduces confidence in the CGM advocates and the alarming warming advocates.
My confidence in science increases as I see the continued climate science self-correction away from over-utilization and over-valuation of GCMs.
John
Strawman erection; subject matter you’re bringing up does approach the point of my prior post.
Next …
.
I am scared of the effects of global warming
David Ball says: October 16, 2012 at 3:16 pm
“That is really funny quoting the one part of AR4 that is essentially the opposite of what the body of the AR4 is saying.”
Well, unlike so many here, I do quote to back up what I’m saying. RC didn’t, and neither do you. If you think somewhere in the body of the AR4 contradicts that, please quote.
internetbusniessmarketing says:
“I am scared of the effects of global warming”
You are the victim of false propaganda. Warming is beneficial. It is cold that kills.
Read this site for a while and you will understand that there is nothing to be alarmed about. The entire “carbon” scare is a ploy to get you to agree to cough up more tax money. The scare is based on pseudo-science. That is why its promoters refuse to debate the subject. If they truly believed the nonsense they are peddling, don’t you think they would be happy to publicly discuss it with scientific skeptics? Instead, they run and hide from any public debate.
D Böehm asked ”stefanthedenier, What is the temperature on your planet?”
Boehm, I’ve repeated 1000 times; one more time… here we go::: ”nobody knows what’s the global temp, to save his / her life!!!” How many grains of sand are in Sahara…? There are so many variations in the temperature; on every different place and changes every 10-15 minutes. But I can tell you that: overall warmth is always the same – that’s what the laws of physics say – whatever those laws don’t approve = must be WRONG!
There was big / small ice ages = but they were ALL LOCALIZED! Simultaneously, on the opposite hemisphere is completely different. Same as children’s see-saw -> the more one side goes up -> the more the other side goes down. Not even theoretically both sides simultaneously can go up, or down , Therefore: the Warmist don’t have a case. When was an ice age in the N/H, S/H had ”HOTTER” days than normal. Anybody promoting warmer the WHOLE planet for more than 10-15 minutes; is either lying, or is spreading other people’s lies – in the ”Brainwashing Laundromat” You want to learn about the self-adjusting mechanisms… it’s all on my website. In the 10-10 posts I have; everything is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. Get down from the cloud-land, my planet, the earth has the best self adjusting mechanisms, my formulas are the most reliable. Climatic changes and the phony GLOBAL warmings, are two not related things. Climatic changes big / small, are constant natural phenomena – GLOBAL warming is a phenomenal lie. warmings are NEVER global / coolings are never global, they happen for real reasons, nothing to do with CO2 or sunspots, or galactic dust. H2O is the corporate, on many different ways.
richardscourtney says: October 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm
‘2.You did NOT read – or ignored – the conclusion of the “lead post”.’
Well, if you think there’s a conclusion in those last paras, please say what it is.
The title, on the other hand, is admirably explicit:
“NOAA’s ’15 year statement’ from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office ‘insignificance’ claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years”
That’s what I was addressing. It’s not irrelevant.
– – – – – – – –
internetbusniessmarketing,
I feel sorry for you in your fear.
I am not concerned about any aspect of climate behavior over the next ~300 hundred years. Also, I am confidence free thinkers in science and industry will continuously and dramatically advance every aspect of knowledge and quality of life . . . . . if those free men/women can continue to block authoritarian activists of all kinds, not just those authoritarians who promote totalitarianism within the community of ideological environmentalism.
John
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm
The fact that you SPECIFICALLY wrote SPM, tells me that you know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You reveal yourself, sir.
David Ball says: October 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“The fact that you SPECIFICALLY wrote SPM, tells me that you know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You reveal yourself, sir.”
I specifically wrote it in response to RC, not you. I wrote it because it seemed to match the words he used.
You, on the other hand, won’t reveal anything unless you can quote what you’re talking about.
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:06 pm
RC has not referred to the SPM once. NOT ONCE. Your game playing is despicable.
internetbusniessmarketing says: October 16, 2012 at 4:13 pm ”I am scared of the effects of global warming”
Gooood, BOO, BOOO!!!
David Ball says: October 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“RC has not referred to the SPM once.”
No, he didn’t. That’s part of my complaint about not quoting. But unlike you, at least he gave some specifics, in the post that he directed me to:
“The IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. predicted and not projected) that global temperature would rise at a rate of 0.2deg.C/decade averaged over the first two decades following year 2000.”
Well, in fact the SPM said, in the projections section:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
Sure sounds like what he’s referring to, but I wanted to check, so I asked. My point was that if that was it, he’s got the timeline wrong. They said, in 2007, the “next two decades”, not starting 2000.
If that was it, I see he also got the “(n.b. predicted and not projected)” wrong.
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm
” But unlike you, at least he gave some specifics”
This is what I am talking about Nick. Weak attempt to deflect the disagreement back onto me instead of having the courage to address what I said. You and I both know what is in the AR4 and the differing Summary for Policy Makers.
Tell you what, send me $50,000 in funding and I will research it full time. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Mark says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:20 pm
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.
———————————————————————————————————-
Hate to point his out Mark but time does not have “length”. Time and length are different physical units. Why not “period of time” or “time duration”.
One of my pet peeves , couldn’t resist. Well it is a scientific blog!
Some specifics for you Nick;
http://drtimball.com/2012/without-internet-democracy-and-transparency-ipcc-climate-deception-succeeds/
Come on Nick, There is supposed to be a radiative imbalance and even more heating in “the pipeline”. More CO2 goes into the atmosphere every day and we’re measuring stuff better than ever and despite all that the earth simply isn’t playing ball. Something’s wrong with AGW and its got to do with personalities and bias, not science.
Nick Stokes:
Your behaviour in this thread is despicable. My post at October 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm detailed that behaviour and requested that you apologise for it. Subsequently you have made a series of posts which continue that behaviour.
For example, my detail of your behaviour quoted the conclusion of the above article verbatim but in your post addressed to me at October 16, 2012 at 4:42 pm you ask me
The conclusion is the final two sentences in the above article which say
Anybody can see that conclusion and nobody needs to ask “what it is”.
And you have repeatedly attempted to imply I made an untrue or unjustified assertion as foundation of my argument in my post at October 16, 2012 at 10:52 am. For example, at October 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm you quote my having said
And you assert to David Ball saying of that
NO! It does NOT “sound like” that at all!
You did not ask me to what I was referring but, instead, asserted what the SPM said and David Ball repeatedly complained out that the SPM differs from what the body of IPCC reports says (indeed, that difference is why I never cite IPCC SPMs). Your post which asserts “sounds like” is part of your attempts to disrupt the thread but purports to be answering David Ball’s complaints.
The IPCC AR4 says in “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” Chapter 10 at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-1-mean-temperature.html
[emphasis added, RSC]
There has been no “large volcanic eruption” and complete negation of the warming is more than a “somewhat” change to “those values” especially when “about half of the early 21st-century warming is committed in the sense that it would occur even if atmospheric concentrations were held fixed at year 2000 values”.
As I said, that “committed warming” has NOT occurred.
Now, Nick Stokes, I can see you pointing out that the paragraph does not specifically mention the period 2000 to 2020. But I can abort that knit-pick. Because a later paragraph in the same link says
The succinct quotation I have provided here is considered so important a prediction that the IPCC bolds the text I have quoted. .
And emissions have fallen “within the range of the SRES marker scenarios”.
Nick Stokes, I still await your apology for your continued attempts to disrupt this thread with childish irrelevancies.
Richard
Nick, you don’t seem to want to place any weight on 15 years of .05 +- ?, but Kevin wants to attribute 24 hour trends (hot days) and 72 hour trends (storms) to CO2. A few years of quickly rising temperatures seemed to be enough to reveal the “smoking gun” and the “human fingerprint” but a few years of FA should be ignored. Really, you guys have to stop playing good cop bad cop and make a prediction. It’s unseemly.
Please, let’s not lose sight of the obvious… that while the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing, global average temperature has followed a completely different trend. No sight of any tipping point. No evidence of a coming climate catastrophe!
So let’s now humour ourselves a little with Al Gore’s ‘school lesson’ from ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ telling us that when carbon dioxide rises, so does the temperature!
Al… where are you buddy? Al… Al… say again, Al?
SPM states about 0.2C per decade over the next two decades. In an attempt to demonstrate that this figure is inconsistent with that in the body of the report, Richard, you quote this:
That’s the same as the SPM, it’s just that the information is further contextualised. There’s no discrepancy, just a rearrangement of phrasing.
barry says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:21 am
“further contextualised (sic). ”
That is hilarious. Made my morning. Thanks barry.