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.
“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.”
Actually, I take that back. I re-read the argument (Richard, you would ease the process by being more succinct), and the technical summary section nominates 2000 as the start date. With 7 years difference, I don’t think that’s going to make much difference to the expected trend anyway.
So, we’re 12 years into a 20 year projection.
In conversations w/ a buddy who is bright (Cornell grad) and an AGW proponent, he brings up the issue of the world’s oceans serving essentially as a heat sink and thus absorbing some, or all of, the warming that should be showing up in atmospheric temps.
As a doubter of AGW, I can still see how in theory the oceans could serve to absorb some of the warming, but do wonder how they could account for a good 15 year period of no atmospheric warming.
Can anyone here more versed than me in the down n dirty science boil down the pros and cons of the arguments that the oceans are accounting for some/most of this trend (a flatline on atmospheric warming) we are seeing now for 15+ years?
Additionally, I have seen competing claims that the climate models have been shown to be accurate when applied to known records since 1900, etc. Some say they are dang near spot on, others say they are off by a statistically significant amount. Can anyone comment with cited sources please?
Thanks
When we’re at N years, the appropriate testing period will be N+1 years. That’s my model. It always works.
Keith says:
October 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
Don’t take the easy route. Research those very topics on past WUWT? threads. Read the commentary as well. You will find all you need to refute a Cornell grad.
David,
Thx, I’ve seen some pretty good discussion threads. But I’m sure you can relate that trying to find the nuggets of gold amongst the myriad of comments is pretty challenging.
I’ll do some digging.
K
barry:
Thankyou for your correction at October 17, 2012 at 6:43 am where you say
As you say, “it doesn’t make much difference” which emphasises my complaint that Nick Stokes was attempting to distract the thread with irrelevancies.
In fact, in my post addressed to you at October 16, 2012 at 10:52 am (which Nick Rose used to start his distractions) I avoided exaggeration by only using 11 years (not 12 years) into the 20 year projection.
Richard
Ouch!
This would infer, for an energy transfer (in the form of heat) to occur from one to the other (from source to sink), a temperature differential … is this in fact the case?
1/3 of surface area (land) warming 2/3 of the surface (ocean)? There are different coefficients (specific heat, thermal conductivity, etc) for the two types of ‘surfaces’ to, between water and land.
.
Richard,
Nick was consistently asking for a cite or quote, and you and others in the conversation did not provide that til late in the piece. Nick’s ‘behaviour’ is understandable, not despicable. When someone makes a claim, good etiquette is to back it up with references (rather than take shots at the enquirer).
The fracas could have been obviated had you or someone else posted this link at the outset, quoting the relevant para. The SPM quote is much better known for the trend projection and period you were talking about, and it was natural for Nick to guess that was what you were referring to – I certainy thought that was the reference.
If we were more concerned with making points than scoring points, these conversations would be much more productive.
Having established the reference and that the 20-year estimate starts from 2000, I’ve forgotten the point. What difference does it make?
barry says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“Nick was consistently asking for a cite or quote, and you and others in the conversation did not provide that til late in the piece. Nick’s ‘behaviour’ is understandable, not despicable.”
Nick was playing childish games and knew what I was talking about. Now you are playing them too. Your version of events is demonstrably false revealed in the thread.
Funny that your “buddy” ran away and left you all alone to defend his despicable antics.
David,
richard introduced the topic of the IPCC projection of 0.2C over 2 decades here. For his claim he references an IPCC chart of projections to 2100, 2200, and 2300. This is no corroboration for his claim. The cite is useless as it requires eyeballing something pretty indistinct and none of the text is relevant to his claim.
Nick Stokes replied on the matter first here, referencing the SPM, which is the best-known source for the trend/period projection. This is an understandable assumption, as richard’s reference had nothing on that subject.
There was another reply to Nick Stokes from a different poster, but there was no cite within. richard’s next post to Nick again contained no direct reference for what he was saying.
David Ball (you) chips in rebutting Nick, but still no clear reference, quote or link to lay the matter to rest.
Then Nick here directly asks you for a reference for the claim. That’s not game-playing.
Rather than giving him the requested reference, you make accusatory statements. Nick replies immediately below that post that you (again) have not provided a reference.
You and Richard maintained a claim for which you would not provide corroboration when directly asked, and you let this go on for half the thread. I consider this akin to “game-playing,” and certainly contrary to the fostering of respectful conversation.
My description of events is not demonstrably false, it’s demonstrably accurate, and I think the onfollowing conjecture is valid.
“The fracas could have been obviated had you or someone else posted this link at the outset, quoting the relevant para.”
I’ve backed up my comments with references at the outset to assist the reader. I am not a game-player, sir. And anyone can read this thread to see what happenned.
Now, what was the point again?
ThinkProgress offers a rebuttal to the “Global warming stopped 16 years ago” interpretation of the Met Office report.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/?mobile=nc
I’m not equipped to fact-check its charts and interpretations thereof, so I was hoping somebody out there might be able to take up the cause.
Yeah, I know it’s ThinkProgress, but that outfit is quite representative of the CAGW crowd.
barry says:
October 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“That’s not game-playin”David Ball (you) chips in rebutting Nick, but still no clear reference, quote or link to lay the matter to rest.”
Right up until here you were doing well barry. Then you miss the crux and the game playing (or did you conveniently not read my post?), where I point out that Nick specifically wrote SPM after AR4 knowing that there is huge difference in conclusions between documents. He then tried to claim it was because Richard Courtney that mentioned it and I then pointed out that Mr. Courtney had never mention the SPM. Bam.
Everyone who has read WUWT? fairly regularly has read of the differences and who the SPM was “adjusted” by. Hilarious that I need to post a reference when Nick himself revealed that he knew the difference. Game playing. You continue in the same manner.
“Then Nick here directly asks you for a reference for the claim. That’s not game-playing.”
I dare you to read my posts someday. We could have a reasonable discussion if you guys would just stop trying to redirect the discussion into pointless avenues instead of the topic at hand.
David,
“AR4” includes the SPM, Technical Summary, Chapters, Glossary, list of references (and WGII and WGIII), etc. AR4 is a massive document. Richard cited “IPCC AR4” as his reference. How could Nick possibly know which part of AR4 was being referred to?
0.2C per decade over two decades is a projection well-known to be in the AR4 SPM. With no more direction than “AR4”, that is the reference most reasonably knowledgable people would think of. I myself assumed that richard was referring to the SPM statement. Unless you have prior knowledge that Nick is fully aware of the issue as discussed in the Technical Summary, ie, you’ve read him posting about it, then your chastisement is presumptuous.
You said that richard had never referred to the SPM, and that this was how you knew Nick was playing games. But richard didn’t mention the Technical Summary either, where the reference is to be found. In fact, the only person in this thread that ever mentioned it was in the Technical Summary was myself (richard finally gave a link). Unless you know for a fact that Nick was aware of the reference in the Technical Summary, you (and richard) have piled on without cause.
I’ve provided links to the conversation to corroborate what I’ve said. Can you show me where, with one link, Nick “revealed that he knew the difference” between the Technical Summary and SPM references? I could find no such admission.
And then could you remind of the point? What difference does it make if the start of the trend projection is in 2000 or 2007?
barry says:
October 18, 2012 at 3:54 am
Tired of your lack of reading comprehension and tap dancing. Buh-Bye
Asw to how I can be playing games when I eventually agreed with richard’s (and your) take after receiving a reference, I leave to any intrepid readers to decide.
barry:
Yes, you did agree the error of Nick Stokes when it became obvious the error would be demonstrated. And I thanked you for doing it.
However, it does seem that David Ball is right when he says that after having agreed the error you ‘picked up the baton’ of thread disruption from Nick Stokes. Please desist.
Richard
Equally tired of your consistent refusal to reference anything you say. Have a nice day/afternoon/evening.
barry says:
October 18, 2012 at 7:43 am
You’re just too lazy to scroll back up thread and read the bloody posts. It’s all there.
One more question barry. You paid to be here?
A bit late to post but here is the Mail on Sunday/Met. Office follow-up.
Score: David Rose 1 – Met Office 0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
FrankK says:
October 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm:
“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!”
No! There is theory and there is experiment. Your theory might be that you cannot start a sentence with ‘and’ or ‘or’ or ‘but’ or that time does not have a length. The experiment (English as it is actually used) says otherwise, and trumps the theory every time. That’s how us mere physics teachers can bet with English teachers in bars and WIN EVERY TIME! I’ll bet you right now that time does have a length if you want it to: it’s called a “length of time”. There’s even a selection bias called a “length of time bias”.
To use the word “duration” there would need to be something ‘during’. Period and length would be equivalent in this context.
I might ask you how LONG you have held the belief that periods of time cannot be lengthy?
And funnily enough, lengths of time are measured in units of time, just like periods of time or durations.