The puzzle: why have rising temperatures been on a 'Twenty-year hiatus"?

Not sure that “sceptical fringe” would apply here, but I’ll take the press where we can get it. See my comments below. – Anthony

20year_australian

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled | The Australian

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.” The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century. “The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

“Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period.”

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

Read it all here: http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

================================================================

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

While the effect is only quantified in the USA for now, there is anecdotal evidence that it is a worldwide problem.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Always interesting that point on the roller coaster ride when you’re at the top of the incline and then briefly almost level and then …

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Switzerland

The ever-trumpeting equivocation between global warming (not happening now) and climate change (happening all the time), as a means of ‘cautioning’ those ready to ‘deny’ that it is ‘real’ (or state that it is a delusion). Hogwash. Hogwash. Did I mention hogwash?? Straw flying everywhere. Hansen’s statement is nonsensical (“it’s CO2, I tell ya!!!”) as is Mann’s ongoing revisitation of the Schtick, reconfirmed by more bad science.
What’s a guy to do?

“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
Yes it does.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Hansen’s MO seems to be: if temperature rises, blame CO2; if temperature holds steady or declines, blame coal. No matter what happens it’s our fault and we must take drastic action now.
One wonders just when they will admit there’s even the tiniest possibility the problem is with their theory and models.

“Nevermind. We’ve decided there really isn’t a problem and we don’t need that massive new carbon tax. Sorry to have disturbed you.”

Not holding my breath.

RS

In real science, when the model doesn’t predict reality, you know the model is WRONG.
But that doesn’t seem to work in climate science.
Must be like Keynesian economics, it’s just too politically useful to be wrong.

“The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.”
But doesn’t mention the adjustments Anthony has covered or that big yellow nuclear furnace up in the sky… Still some way to go, but the message is getting through. Well done everybody.

James Griffin

It’s quite simple really.
There is no evidence of the Tropical Troposphere warming despite an eleven year watch by the Aqua Satellite and twenty years of weather balloons. Furthermore AGW “scientists” stand accused or ramping up positive feedback predictions and ignoring the negatives. On top of that the biggest blunder was to factor in CO2’s ability to create heat as linear when it is logarithmic.
Therefore theory fails the test.

pat

The Climateers are getting nervous. Expect ever more curious and unconventional science. The Climateers (not just Warmists anymore) are at their best when explaining data that goes against the ‘consensus’.

Pat Frank

the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by” the fact that no one knew, or knows, what they’re talking about, and the “prediction” of GHG-driven temperatures was so much b*ll*cks.
Willie Soon let me know that Al Gore is coming to speak on climate at Stanford, by the way. Sponsored by the Woods Institute. In an event to honor Stephen Schneider. Stanford includes a hotbed of sustainability consciousness and Al will probably leave with the skin of his major midlevel muscle group chapped from all the kisses.

I know that natural variation will likely bring us into higher temperatures in the next few years, but MAN i hope they don’t just to see all the articles desperately trying to explain it away!

mwhite

It all depends on how you torture the data
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
“The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree”
“The climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years. Photograph: Nature Geoscience “

Resourceguy

Turning the tables on their labeling, it’s about time the overwhelming majority caught up with the minority of rational thinkers in observing the growing climate model errors compared to actuals. The next step will be for the laggard overwhelming majority to look at the taxpayer-funded climate monitoring systems for themselves and see the very real potential or outright global surface temperature declines in place of flat lines or return to upward momentum. The head-in-the sand approach of the laggard, overwhelming majority continues.

‘I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here:”
Except that CRN stations match the existing record (USHCNV2) over the period in question.
That is, if you look at USHCNv2 and compute the area average using the most precise methods we have, and if you compare that to the area average using the most precise method and best data ( CRN ), the two curves are statistically indistinguishable.
REPLY: Sorry, but that’s not what is being examined, and the premise still holds, but you’ll have to wait for the paper to see why – Anthony

Hal44

Clearly, this planet needs to start burning MORE coal, 24/7!

It is weird that for such obvious results there is so little specific reaction.
Note the specific, not general places where the Arctic ice is lost, and the timing. For “more open water” to be a source of more cold/more snow, the areas of more open water than long-term average are just the eastern “seas”, and during only a portion of the year. Another global result from averaging regional effects?

A lag between CO2 and warming? Imagine that…….

TheInquirer

Puzzle? The puzzle is how 16 years has become 20 within 2 months.
But there’s no puzzle over why the fringe dwellers are able to deceive. They have cherry picked a period of a very strong El Niño warming event followed by a very strong La Nina cooling event.
Meanwhile the heat content of the oceans continues to grow, the seas are rising, the Arctic is melting, weather has gone haywire and WUWT shows why it remains at the fringe and happy to use a deception to “get their press”.

AnonyMoose

Isn’t the definition of a climate scientist being one who thinks that temperatures are rising? Thus, of course they’re puzzled.

David Ging

Does anyone know what year the models in the Economist article made their prediction. It looks like it might be 2005 or 2000. Is there anyway to see the IPCC model from 1990? This model should have 23 years of forecasting history. If that model has done a good job, CAGW has a strong empirical base to stand on. I’m guessing that since I’ve been trying for years to get the data w/o success that the actual temp increase is well below forecast. That’s why no one is talking about it. Anyone know where I can get the data. Thanks.

PaulH

It’s a good thing the science was settled years ago and none of this matters.
/snark

tallbloke says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:13 am
But doesn’t mention […] that big yellow nuclear furnace up in the sky…
And for a good reason, as the Sun has very little to do with this. Of course, every ’cause’ has its own holy grail, so dream on…

The BBC’s Paul Hudson thinks it might be the sun!
Looks like there might be a few irate emails winging Richard Black’s way again from the Team!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/has-paul-hudson-put-his-foot-in-it-again/

Andrew Harding

I will hazard a guess that the reason global temperatures haven’t risen while CO2 levels have, is very simply because CO2 never caused the warming in the first place. I am applying logic rather than a belief to reach this conclusion.
As for the unexplained temporary lag in temperature increase; what planet are these people on?
CO2 has either caused GW or it hasn’t. It is incapable of having a hissy fit, to confound “scientists” and make global temperatures remain static. Physics does not work like that.
Trillions of £/$ spent dealing with this “problem”, economies threatened with disaster due to energy costs, my flights and petrol costs are through the roof and the best these clowns can come up with is this??
It really beggars belief!!

Timothy Sorenson

“…if we had included….”, “A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade,” “…the new climate dice…” When they start listing as many possibilities they can think to explain this we have then showing their colors: they would rather be world saviors and prophets than objective scientists studying it all with an open mind.

DAV

James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
If the temps had continued to rise it would have been due to burning coal. Amazing stuff that burning coal.

GlynnMhor

With the stagnation of warming being accompanied by the most quiescent Sun we’ve had since the Dalton Grand Solar Minimum, one would think more analysis would be done on how our Sun affects the climate.
But I suppose that’s insufficiently ‘politically correct’.

Theo Goodwin

wws says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:10 am
‘“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
Yes it does.’
It darn sure means that computer models of climate are a delusion. Actual temperatures are on the verge of dropping out of the error bars. Yes, the error bars. It is not just that the computer projections have all proved to be wrong; rather, they are wrong even when taking into account the generously fat error bars that modelers attached to their projections. In other words, the temperature slump is beyond the wildest dreams of even the modelers.

Brian H

Oh, the cognitive dissonance; It burns!

When she [Leona Marshall Libby] and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now though the mid-1980s. “Then,” Dr. Libby added, “we see a warming trend (by about a quarter of 1 degree Fahrenheit) globally to around the year 2000. And then it will get really cold – if we can believe our projections. This has to be tested.”
How cold? “Easily one or two degree,” She replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees. It only takes 10 degree to bring on and Ice Age.”
From St. Petersburg Times (Florida USA) January 1, 1979

scarletmacaw

Steven Mosher says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:32 am
Except that CRN stations match the existing record (USHCNV2) over the period in question.

You need to come up with better spin than that. CRN stations have only been around ten years. The problem with the non-compliant stations is the INCREASE in local warming over decades, most of which occurred during the 1960s-1980s when air travel became the norm, air conditioners replaced fans, and asphalt replaced concrete and grass.

NZ Willy

Here’s my theory as to why: Because the climateers aren’t able to adjust the recent temperatures — too high profile. If only they could adjust the whole past downwards, then warming would be restored! How many are skulking in their labs, thinking of ways… who’s that tapping on my shoulder… oh no, it’s Lewandowski!! Nailed, aaagh!!

WTF

I don’t really think they are puzzled at all. I think they are pi**ed off but not puzzled. They thought their ‘new world order’ would have been implemented they would be collecting their CAGW pensions by now. But like with any belief syatem they still have faith.

Eliza

Well it seems that finally the AGW is falling we can now quote mainstream media saying that they are beginning to doubt. Now once they realize it was a fraud all along they are going to go after the culprits like you would not believe it. It will be the new story…..

Jimbo

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

No Pachauri, it is already making your projections a laughing stock. The IPCC got it wrong and as each year goes by withought warming the worse the ‘wrongness’. 😉

In North West Europe the cold winter is always blamed on cold blast from Siberia. I believe the USA and Canada have something cold ‘Siberian Express’ too. Myself coming from East Europe, personally blame Russians for everything including the cold winters.
Back to the climate change; all indications are that the Siberian change of direction has taken place about a decade ago (blue & green curves)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMF.htm
Today this may not be exact science, or according to some not science at all, but you never know about tomorrow. 🙂 , 🙂

Theo Goodwin

mwhite says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:29 am
You are referring to a graph published in the Guardian two days ago. That graph diverges wildly from the graphs under discussion here which were published in the Economist a day or two earlier. Having scanned the Guardian article, my guess is that the authors are imploding on the Marcott-Mann model.

Jean Meeus

< James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
That is strange. Earlier, he said that the temperature was rising due to the increase of CO2, which was due to burning coal. But now burning coal gives cooling!

Mark Bofill

Heck guys, you can ding me on this if you like, but honestly I’ve never understood why anybody expected any rapid warming in the first place. Isn’t the surface like 70% water? Obviously it’s going to take a lot longer to heat up water than atmosphere for a given energy increase. Don’t SST’s essentially drive atmospheric temps? ~shrug~

Darren Potter

James Hansen … says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
Setting aside the Could be nonsense.
Given G.W. Alarmists past claims, this has to be one of the most sanctimonious pieces of rhetoric to ever be put forth. Good god can’t these G.W. Aers admit they were blowing hot air and wrong?! Hansen’s latest desperation makes me more determined to see him and G.W. Aers tried for fraudulent use of government resources and funding.

jeanparisot

“if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then”
They would be in jail for fraud, insider trading, theft by deception, mail fraud, and misleading statements … the regulators would be building careers on their backs.

Jimbo

My apologies. I got it all wrong. The Guardian now says the models were right afterall.

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

When observations diverge from predictions just do an analysis and make necessary adjustments and voila!

Mac the Knife

From Tips and Notes comments:
leon0112 says:
March 27, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Dr. Don Easterbrook testified before a Washington State Senate Committee hearing on climate change. He gave this
http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=OM6RXr5xY6Q&att=false.
Big ‘Hat Tip’ to leaon0112 !
This is a great pitch that Dr. Easterbrook provided to a committee hearing in the Washington State Senate. What You Need To Know About Global Warming Climate Change Climate DisruptionExtreme Weather, Ocean Acidification and Issues in Senate Bill 5802
http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=OM6RXr5xY6Q&att=false.
I saw part of Dr. Easterbrook’s video presentation on a local (Seattle area) service channel. If I can find a link to the video, I’ll post it.
MtK

BarryW

So Hansen now sees “coal trains of salvation” rather than “coal trains of death”?

if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then
They would be in jail for insider trading, misleading public statements, mail fraud, government contracting fraud, securities violations, etc. Whole agencies of regulators would be building their careers on their backs.

Jimbo

Hansen blamed coal for global warming AND blames coal for the temperature standstill. Yet he also blamed soot in the past for global warming saying it was twice as effective as co2 in warming air temperatures. Is there anything coal can’t do?

If that double posted, delete one. When your signed in under word press you don’t get a pending review notice?

From the article “Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.”
Just trying to buy another 20 years before he thinks he can be demonstrated a charlatan.

James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
Hmmm…I seem to remember Hansen saying something about coal “death” trains leading to a runaway Venus like atmosphere. He appears now to be setting himself up to be able to say that coal is the reason we are going to go into a new ice age, if “we don’t stop burning it now!” I wonder if he has shorted coal companies…?
I honestly think he sees all of the natural patterns we skeptics do and front runs the swings with press releases/grant requests to study the “change” and prove it is “unnatural”. We all know what he said in 1988 in front of Congress, does anyone know if he said anything about the Coming Ice Age in the 70’s?

David Harrington

Or it could be the theory is wrong, Occam’s Razer and all that good stuff.

Found a rare pic of Hansen, Pachauri, Mann and Schmidt all together here [taxpayer is on left].