Update and confirmation of 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' aka 'the pause'

This time Dr. Judith Curry weighs in. In an email to me earlier this week she revealed that she has been quite busy with this rebuttal (to warmists) and assisting the Mail with this update to the story that appeared last week. Bottom line, the Met Office rebutal was more in agreement than not and Dr. Curry suggests ‘Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’– Anthony

article image

Last week The Mail on Sunday provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997.

The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

We received hundreds of responses from readers, who were overwhelmingly critical of those climate change experts who believe that global warming is inevitable.

But the Met Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners, accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten days ago.

Image Attachment

The Mail on Sunday revealed figures which appeared to show a 16-year ‘pause’ in global warming

Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded:

‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’

 

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

 

See the full article with Q&A here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brian Macker

“We received hundreds of responses from readers, who were overwhelmingly critical of those climate change experts who believe that global warming is inevitable.”
Well then they are wrong. More CO2 with all other things equal means higher temperatures in the future. What’s up for debate is how big the effect will be, and whether that is a good or bad thing (it would be good to delay or stop the next ice age).

kim

A smile rose in the East.
============

Bill

Looks like a hockey stick to me 😉

Forget the War on Women the War on Data continues apace.

Bloke down the pub

Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
“ More CO2 with all other things equal means higher temperatures in the future.”
Well there’s a nice little cop-out. Whoever said all other things would be equal? If the feedbacks are negative then in the short term at least, more CO₂ means lower temperatures in the future.

The MET office statement says that the trend over the 16 year period is “about 0.03°C/decade”, however it doesn’t mention that the error on the linear fit is far larger than that – 0.15°C. Even Skeptical Science give an error of 0.152 see here.
Therefore a correct statistical statement is that the data show a trend of 0.0 ± 0.1°C

Actually the question is whether or not CO2 is the ‘evil game changer’ it is claimed. Research on nuclear submarines suggest a different scenario. The average CO2 level on an operational submarine may be as high as 2,000 ppm, but is generally around 700 ppm (I think Anthony has a post on this somewhere) which rather refutes some of the claims of ‘heat’ trapping as the submarines are able to maintain a fairly stable internal temperature, admittedly with air conditioning to regulate it. The bigger problem at the upper end of the scale is the narcotic effect on the brain. But at 700 ppm it is not measurable.
If Hansen et al are to be believed, these submarines should be unbearably hot after a very short patrol. They’re not. In fact some compartments have a heating problem.

michel

Brian Macker —
Other things aren’t equal. They rarely are. Other things being equal, if I eat more cholesterol, my levels will rise. But they don’t. Other things being equal, if we add cholesterol lowering drugs to statins, the death rate will fall. But it doesn’t. Other things being equal, if we change from saturated to unsaturated fats….
We are dealing with complex systems. Rising CO2 might raise levels, or it may be counter acted by negative feedback, of complex sorts.
Other things being equal, raising taxes and lowering spending will always reduce the deficit. Yes, tell it to the Greeks!

pat

give thanx david rose, judith curry, anthony watts, steve mcintyre, joanne nova, andred montford and all who have helped to rescue the scientific method from a dangerous shift back to scientific dogma.

Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
Well then they are wrong. More CO2 with all other things equal means higher temperatures in the future.
============================================================================
Have you seen the studies by Ferenc Miskolczi ? Deriving his results from the analysis of weather balloon data compiled over 60 years, he has shown that, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there has been a matching (in its effect) reduction in water vapor thereby maintaining the greenhouse effect in stable equilibrium.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

The other Gary’s aren’t going to be very happy about this 😉

Observed GMST Least Squares Trends to verify whether global warming has stopped
GissTemp
1990-2005=> 0.21 deg C/decade
1997-2012=> 0.09 deg C/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2012/trend
Hadcrut3
1990-2005=> 0.24 deg C/decade
1997-2012=> 0.01 deg C/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2012/trend
Hadcrut4
1990-2005 => 0.21 deg C/decade
1997-2012 => 0.06 deg C/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2012/trend
Conclusion
From the above observation, for all the datasets the trend has decelerated and it is about zero for Hadcrut3.
The above are the fact as the teachings of Feynman.

mwhite

I wonder if there is a 16 year pause in the unadjusted data
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/defiling-the-past/

Otter

Garymount, I’m one of the Garys that agrees with your assessment on the other garys 😛

David, UK

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’
That’s still a lie. If they were honestly attempting to speak the truth they would say there has been statistically insignificant warming in the 21st century.” That’s as good as none at all, not “a very small amount.”

However, most ingested cholesterol is esterified and esterified cholesterol is poorly absorbed. The body also compensates for any absorption of additional cholesterol by reducing cholesterol synthesis.[6] For these reasons, cholesterol intake in food has little, if any, effect on total body
cholesterol content or concentrations of cholesterol in the blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

Camburn

clivebest@6:21
“Even Skeptical Science give an error of 0.152”
==================================================
I would suggest that you carefully examine the methodology of anything SS indicates. They hold the rank of being #1 as the worst cherry pickers of all time.
And they keep finding imaginary warming. Delusional is a nice term to describe their outcomes.
We have not warmed for 16 years. That is what the data shows and it will soon be 17.

Bill Hunter

Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
“Well then they are wrong. More CO2 with all other things equal means higher temperatures in the future. What’s up for debate is how big the effect will be, and whether that is a good or bad thing (it would be good to delay or stop the next ice age).”
Climate change is the one constant we can depend upon. We know for a fact all other things will not be equal. So the real challenge is to find out if future climate change will be positive or negative in the sense of what is good for mankind. In fact, its probable that positive temperature increases, should that be the result, will be positive for mankind. It just goes to show how anti-progress the progressive movement has become. Its gotten to the point where politicians lie so much that nobody that follows them knows if they are coming or going.

Franksw

Judith Curry wants us to acknowledge the “pause”, how does she know, it could be a peak not a pause on the way up.

Chuck

Thank you, Dr. Curry.
It is a shame more papers don’t report this story.

mwhite

Climate and Climate change according to the metoffice

Sounds like a school presentation, spot the “mistakes”

Chuck

IT IS ALL ABOUT SUNSPOT ACTIVITY IN OUR PLACE IN TIME AND SPACE.
Since the Cycle that began around 1976 and including climate lag, the cycles have been deceasing until 2008 and those three cycles generated our global warming that incorporates the start of Arctic Ice measurements in 1979.
Now we are in a solar minimum that is mirroring the weather and climate conditions that came about from a flat sunspot cycle that looks like Devil’s Tower. The sunspot minimum, which is more acurately measured than the ones in 1700 and 1800 will give a future generations a better idea of sunspot activity effects on future weather and climate.
Climate changes a bit one season at a time.

The “Pause” is the first part of the 21 Cty-temp ‘Plateau” as already widely
recognized and we give the plateau description in
http://www.knowlegdeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html
The plateau – shape is visible to the blind, continues, no upward Warmist temp
spike is expected, whether one calculates a 0.03 C increase or not. The
upward Warmist temp spike is only hope of the “Church of AGW”. JS

edmh

Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coolest millennium of the Holocene so far and if we are true to history after 10,000 good years, we could fall right of the edge into a real ice age any millennium soon. Dalton minimum conditions are already on the way for the coming 40 years. The only question is whether cooling will continue or perhaps recover with some further warming in which case Man-kind will be really lucky perhaps for a further millennium or two.

SAMURAI

A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but this Rose has created quite a stink….
Once more into the breach, my friends, once more…

rgbatduke

Therefore a correct statistical statement is that the data show a trend of 0.0 ± 0.1°C
An even better statistical statement is that the R value (or R^2 value) for any linear fit is absurdly small, in this case around 0.01 or even smaller (if I’m doing the arithmetic in my head correctly, always open to doubt:-).
However, neither of the statements above are truly statistically meaningful because we don’t know the underlying timescales or functional forms of the natural, unforced variation. What we do know is that the temperature series is not composed of the means of independent, identically distributed samples. It is possible that the “pause” is itself pure statistical noise in a long term warming trend. It could be that the “pause” is the peak before a long term downward trend. It could be that the pause isn’t a pause, it is a new more or less steady state that will last decades with minor variations up or down. What is almost certain is that on a time scale of centuries the climate will move up or down a degree C or more, at least it has fairly consistently varied by that much or more in the historical (instrumental and non-instrumental) past and much more than that in the prehistorical past known only by proxies.
One of my favorite forms of amusement in the past has been watching Monte Carlo results as they evolve out of a Markov Chain of one sort or another, often one where the actual functional form of the result is known either analytically or to a very high approximation. The results, especially in or near a critical regime, do not generally reflect that underlying analytic form particularly well until one has a lot of iid data, many runs. It makes the efforts of those who are trying to extract the analytical “signal” from the non-Markovian, chaotic, sparsely sampled, error-laden temperature data equally amusing.
One day Bob Tisdale will marry his SST data up with Koutsoyiannis’s Hurst-Kolmogorov analysis and we’ll actually start using the approximately correct Markov process to model the global data. Sometime after that — perhaps another decade or three — with a good enough instrumental record that actually spans full cycles of the major decadal oscillations, and with a lot more data on how the Sun by means known and (currently) unknown influences global climate we may be able to go beyond numerology and make statements about what is trend and what is noise in climate science.
At the moment, the “pause” could be (as the CAGW enthusiasts allege) just that, a pause in a process of runaway global warming driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (a possibility skeptics would do well to keep in mind as it is far from disproven — so far). Or it could be — almost anything else you can imagine. We just don’t know, because predicting the climate a decade or two from now is pissing into an F5 tornado, metaphorically speaking. We might as well contact somebody from the psychic ads section of the National Enquirer to get their take on it as listen to the IPCC or climate researchers, and this is acknowledged by the more honest of the latter.
We don’t know how to predict what the temperature would be or should be in the absence of human-produced CO_2 (or aerosols, ozone, methane, particulate dust, agricultural runoff in the Gulf of Mexico or Bay of Bengal, goats, and macro-scale wheat farms that have replaced forests across the temperate zone. We don’t know how to “predict” what it appears to have been in the past. We don’t know what it is going to do in the future. Not even in very broad terms, not really. Hell, at the moment, I’m not even certain what the weather is going to do in the short run — ENSO went south, metaphorically, the wooly caterpillars are extra wooly (but might have been as confused by ENSO as we humans are), the sun is approaching its feeble solar maximum (feeble yes, but still maximum for the cycle) and besides, the weather we experience in NC is as much a function of what happens to the jet stream as it is of winter cooling per se, and the jet stream is influenced by all of the major oscillations AFAICT. So it’s a crap shoot. Long, cold and snowy? Maybe. Warm enough to sunbathe in January? It was back in 1975 and several times since — it may be once again. Even NOAA refuses to say — ENSO has confused them too.
Predicting the weather is easy. The weather today is most likely to be like the weather yesterday, modulated by an easy seasonal adjustment. That simple prediction will be right more than half the time. Predicting the climate? Not so much.
rgb

wayne

Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
“More CO2 with all other things equal means higher temperatures in the future. ”
BS I say.
Radiation of a gas component will always pass a given amount of energy through a given path length dependent solely on the reaching temperature differential and the total mass of the gases within that path. Equipartition is at play here in a multi-species gas, partially of ir activated components, for all infrared activated gases are each half-capable (up/down) of said energy transfer at lines spread throughout the entire spectrum and all of these can bi-directionally thermalize between translational non-quantitized levels (gray body line morphing). (see Miskolczi’s papers if you dare on ir optical thickness, empirically proven so far)

The Met’s response to the original Mail article was full of holes, misrepresentations and half truths. Surely we are entitled to better than this from out public servants?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/more-met-office-propaganda/

This time Dr. Judith Curry weighs in. In an email to me earlier this week she revealed that she has been quite busy with this rebuttal (to warmists) and assisting the Mail with this update to the story that appeared last week.
I would assert that Dr. Judith Curry knows what she is talking about. I have reason to know that her understanding of the natural variability is far greater than she publicly let it be known.

richardscourtney

rgbatduke:
You provide an excellent post at October 21, 2012 at 7:51 am.
Everybody would benefit from reading and considering it; all of it.
Richard

Camburn

RGB@7:51
Excellent summation.

chemman

“Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am”
Your statement is inaccurate at best. It would be accurate if CO2 was the only variable in what drives temperature change. Alas, CO2 is only one of many variables involved some of which are positive and some of which are negative. So temperature may go and then again it may go down depending upon which variables dominate at any given time.

rgbatduke says: October 21, 2012 at 7:51 am
……..
and with a lot more data on how the Sun by means known and (currently) unknown influences global climate we may be able to go beyond numerology and make statements about what is trend and what is noise in climate science.
Some of the numerology for the shorter term (decadal scale to one century) N. Hemisphere’s natural variability has been workout to a degree where an appropriate mechanism can be contemplated:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
your comments show that you could be an excellent candidate to contribute, verify and consolidate to a required degree. (my email is in the link)

rgbatduke

Judith Curry wants us to acknowledge the “pause”, how does she know, it could be a peak not a pause on the way up.
See my reply. The “pause” bit is simply acknowledging that it has been statistically indistinguishable from no trend for over a decade, even as it has a very strong warming trend over (say) four decades, a somewhat weaker trend over six decades, and a stronger trend again over a century to a century and a half, a very strong trend if you go back 350 years, a very weak trend if you go back a thousand years, and a negative trend if you go back some two thousand years.
We do not know how to predict the baseline temperature the Earth “should” have absent all noise. We do not even know if such a concept is meaningful — the Earth is a non-Markovian chaotic system with numerous positive and negative feedbacks and a very long “memory effect” associated with the century-plus scale of turnover in the oceans — the butterfly effect means that our climate in a decade could be influenced by things like whether or not I sneeze today — the best we can do is produce an ensemble of possible future climates even with modeling, one so broad that even the “average” over this ensemble is most unlikely to be what actually works out.
So sure, it could be a peak, a pause, or a new more or less (at least transiently) steady state. Time will tell.
It does have one very interesting consequence. Back in 1997 (and before) various predictions were made concerning future temperature trajectories given various levels of presumed climate sensitivity/feedback. Every year that the current trendless trend continues actually provides us with valuable data as it permits us to reject the more extreme of those sensitivities as being inconsistent with observation. Indeed, sensitivity is being systematically reduced AR to AR, even by the IPCC, because the data simply doesn’t support the more catastrophic values. This, more than anything else, is why catastrophic warmism is on the decline and lukewarmism on the rise.
One can, of course play logical fallacy bingo with this:
http://lifesnow.com/bingo/
and claim that refusal to accept this (by those that are still so refusing) is moving the goalposts, just as they can (and do) claim that pointing it out is cherrypicking the data (while of course filling in all of the squares for things like Argumentum ad Populum, Appeal to Fear, Special Pleading, Opinion stated as Fact…).
I’ve suggested to Anthony that he permanently post links to Logical Fallacy Bingo off to the side on his site, so that we can all play with all the top articles — both pro and con. I think it would be most instructive for everybody, and might even impose a certain discipline on the discussion (I can think of many times where I would have gotten “bingo” from a single post on a WUWT thread, again both ways).
For example, let me terrorize you with the threat of rising seas and melting polar icecaps and dying polar bears and penguins, or with a cabal of evil Liberals who want to raise taxes and create a world socialism. They’re both an appeal to fear. Let’s invoke “96% of all scientists” by all means — it fills in a lot of squares, but when skeptics claim certain knowledge that the current temperatures are a peak and they will go down with the sunspot level, that fills in a few for the other side as well (nobody wants to acknowledge the truth, which is that we don’t really know what they will do, or why they will end up doing what they end up doing, at least not yet). We can all revel in False Dilemmas galore — choosing between world socialism and accepting AGW, choosing between catastrophic AGW and carbon futures that enrich selected humans now without actually solving the problem (but beware the Nirvana fallacy on both sides).
rgb

Hoser

pat says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:48 am

That wasn’t poetry, and you’re not ee cummings. You may note there are two shift keys everyone else seems to be able to find. Is it truly terribly difficult to actually use them? Not using them seems to me an indication of disrespect for the reader, although far less obnoxious than others who SHOUT AT US BY WRITING IN ALL CAPS.

the duke says:
We just don’t know, because predicting the climate a decade or two from now is pissing into an F5 tornado, metaphorically speaking
henry@the duke, J.Seifert
did you guys actually find the 88 year energy-in cycle?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

Billy Liar

Paul Homewood says:
October 21, 2012 at 8:04 am
You are forgetting that the UK Met Office is rewarded for spouting whatever propaganda the government and special interest groups want it to spout. It’s bad value for taxpayers money and spends an inordinate amount of effort composing mealy-mouthed excuses for why it has got things wrong. It must be hugely embarrassing to be head of anything at the Met Offfice.

It’s hard to acknowledge the truth of global warming when the factual reality interferes with the political ideology you are planning to make the basis for a redesigned and planned economy worldwide. Remember perceptions of reality matter to future individual behavior more than actual reality. Falsehoods believed prevail in other words when it comes to incentives to act or not. But then actual reality does win out in the end in terms of the consequences of all this manipulation of people and economies and societies through modelling and education based on the false premise of catastrophic manmade global warming.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/squelching-climate-skepticism-while-employing-operant-conditioning-tactics-against-schoolchildren/ is the write up of the US National Academy of Sciences report I mentioned on using education, K-14, to eliminate climate skepticism as if this were the Soviet Union and we all need M-L approved political officers to monitor that all decisions are consistent with the ideology. The report also mentioned how the new science standards will be controversial so the squelching should come in covertly through systems thinking in all academic subjects. Which of course asserts that there is such a thing as a single Unified science instead of social sciences and natural and physical sciences. There goes the science of the Enlightenment by ed school fiat.
So, whatever the temps and whatever the weather, it is hard for the politicians and bureaucrats and crony businesses planning to cash in on being a preferred state approved monopolist vendor of a mandated good or service to give up their AGW trophy. Because they hate free markets and they hate individualism and AGW is the perfect excuse to bind Prometheus back up and shift to an aristocracy of pull.
At our considerable expense. And that’s before the inevitable cleanup since reality will bite in the end even if it remains unknown and unperceived.

commieBob

Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
… More CO2 with all other things equal means higher temperatures in the future. …

Higher than what? Higher than they are ‘now’? Nope. It should be obvious to all but the brain dead that natural variability overwhelms the effect of CO2. I will provide a better wording for you:

“More CO2, with all other things equal, means somewhat higher temperatures in the future than might otherwise be the case.

There; fixed it for ya.

Luther Wu

Chuck says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:34 am
IT IS ALL ABOUT SUNSPOT ACTIVITY IN OUR PLACE IN TIME AND SPACE…
________________
Leif in 5-4-3-

pat

The daily Mail article is quite good.

Mike Smith

Let’s celebrate. The represents a really, really big crack in the MSM script on AGW.
Kudos to the The Mail and I for one salute them.
In fact, let’s all subscribe to this publication and show the rest of the MSM that reporting the truth on the matter does not have to be damaging to their bottom line.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Gee. Climate change. I guess ‘no change’ or even ‘downward change’ is not allowed, eh? therefore, ‘climate change’ should not have been the name of this hogwash. ‘AGW’ comes close…in that the DEFINITION is anthropogenic, to the extent that it can mean whatever it must to suit the agenda of the sorry ass who employs it.
Thanks Judith. You are at least honest about what the ‘science’ is saying.

Brian Johnson uk

Grey Monk said nuclear sub atmospheres had between700 and 2000 ppm CO2
I think that is way too low GM….
“Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46”
That is for 3-6 months and they still have to press the same buttons/levers/keys/switches at the end of the voyage as at the start!

davidmhoffer

The Gray Monk says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:22 am
Actually the question is whether or not CO2 is the ‘evil game changer’ it is claimed. Research on nuclear submarines suggest a different scenario.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How CO2 affects temperatures in the enclosed space of a submarine has about as much to do with the greenhouse effect on planet earth as it does with the price of tea on Mars.

richcar 1225

The Met made the comment that the platueau could contine for some time. I suspect they are expecting further La Nina domination along with a cooling East Pacific due to upwelling cold water which in turn will in turn intensify the marine layer (low clouds) which inhibits the radiative heating of the ocean. The colder water will inhibit evaporation and bring low humidity and drought to Western North and South America. They will discover the power of natural feedbacks.

dcfl51 says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:50 am
he has shown that, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there has been a matching (in its effect) reduction in water vapor thereby maintaining the greenhouse effect in stable equilibrium.
========
Correct. This is basic inorganic chemistry. As you increase the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will reduce the partial pressure of water in the atmosphere, driving water out of the atmosphere.
In other words, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will make it physically more difficult to evaporate water. This is directly opposite to the positive feedback assumption of the IPCC and mainstream climate science.

rgbatduke on October 21, 2012 at 7:51 am
However, neither of the statements above are truly statistically meaningful because we don’t know the underlying timescales or functional forms of the natural, unforced variation. What we do know is that the temperature series is not composed of the means of independent, identically distributed samples. [ . . . ]

– – – – – –
rgbatduke,
A noteworthy discussion which I will reread often.
I appreciate the above quote from your long post. It will help me keep perspective when decadal timescales are considered while discussing climate science.
John

J Martin

One of the MSM papers publicly breaks ranks with the rest of the MSM
This could be a significant breakthrough.
Perhaps a little too much to hope that a domino effect might ensue.