Not sure that “sceptical fringe” would apply here, but I’ll take the press where we can get it. See my comments below. – Anthony
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:
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
While the effect is only quantified in the USA for now, there is anecdotal evidence that it is a worldwide problem.
Related articles
- Climate science: A sensitive matter (economist.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Starting to look more and more like a similar scientific ‘consensus’ a century ago when they stamped their feet and insisted that mathematically man cannot fly!
vukcevic says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm
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.
==========================================================================
Us Canadians don’t blame anyone (except for those that live in Toronto or Vancouver) for the cold weather. We just shrug. The Yanks however blame “Alberta Clippers” or “cold invading from Canada” LOL. Seems they can’t fend us off. First the war of 1812 then Snowbirds and cold weather 😉
As BillClinton might have said ‘its natural variability stupid.’
tonyb
Jimbo says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm
“My apologies. I got it all wrong. The Guardian now says the models were right afterall.”
Not quite. Notice that the article is about one model. The Guardian says that this one model got it right. Quite a change in the topic there, wouldn’t you say? The Economist and the rest of us have been talking about an ensemble of 25 models or so. Also, note that the graph shows a rise in temperature from 1996 to 2013 of about .7C. Preposterous. Looks like a meltdown to me.
dbstealey says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Found a rare pic of Hansen, Pachauri, Mann and Schmidt all together here [taxpayer is on left].
=====================================================================
Can’t find the like button. Where is the like button Anthony!!! LOL
Harold Ambler said;
“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 …”
Is Britain firmly on that dowanrd trip? Answers to THe Met Office, Exeter.
tonyb
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Why ask why? Take it from the drone, bots and clones, they have all the answers. Never mind when they seem to make no sense.
Ahhh, the ever popular deep ocean hidey-hole for heat once again offered up.
Interestingly, in an earlier paper (2011) Hansen realized that his predictions were thrown off somewhat by solar influence. Now he blames nitrogen coal emissions from China and India and the bigger stronger CO2-gobbling plants we’re now growing. What this comes down to is the CO2-driver theory of earth temperature control is dying the slow, but well deserved, painful death it was supposed to receive 100 years ago.
We can expect other warmer scientists to hop on the bandwagon with their own contributions, but the meaning being offered here is completely clear, “The results have been completely disproved, and I was always right.”
Maybe it is time to generally not believe anything a government scientist says.
@Paul Homewood
Richard Black has left the BBC, Roger Harrabin/David Shukman/Jonathon Amos on that watch now.
Ahhh, the ever popular deep ocean once again offered up as the hide hole for that elusive captured excess heat at the same time defecting radiation by pollution offered up why there is no excess heat. Make a pick, warmist people, please.
“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
Whatever, the missing warming does indicate G.W. scientists were utterly wrong.
“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.”
I thought the Global Warming crisis started in 1976 (after climate scientists abandoned the Ice Age is here due to CO2 doom) and ended in 1998. They use a 22 yr period to initiate their theory, but now want a 30-40 yr period “at least” to disprove it?
Here is how global temperatures should have developed over the past 15 years, according to the IPCC, compared with how things really played out:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/detrend:-0.3/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998
A nice, steadily rising CO2+pos.feedback ‘background’ trend superimposed on the natural year-to-year (mostly ENSO-induced) ups and downs. Too bad the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, ENSO also sets the trend. Global temperatures simply follow.
I think I can help these confused climate scientists out, via Feynman:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
The red line and the black dashed line do seem to go along nicely. No explanation of the solid black line and the shaded area. I assume that the solid line is a different prediction and the shaded area is the span of predictions. Heck, with that broad a band to hit, you can’t miss the accurate prediction.The chart proves you need how many wrongs to make a right?
CO2 “temporarily” lags temperatures? I’d expect CO2 to always lag temperatures based on some silly idea about solubility of dissolved gasses versus temperature. I believe CO2 has pretty much lagged temperatures for a very large span of years.
This is the most amazing mishmash of silly statements I’ve read for a while. Nice chuckle on a Friday afternoon.
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.
————————————————————————————————————
So (maybe) 20 years of warming is enough to make it so, but we need twice that or ore to make it not so?
Someone in the mainstream really needs to start tackling them on that or they’ll be able to stretch it out indefinitely!
I think the field of public communication, or more accurately, propaganda, is where the real science of CAGW is taking place.
WTF,
“But like with any belief syatem they still have faith.”
In my opinion the only thing they have faith in is that their checks from the government will clear.
“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.”
The effective volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. If (high estimate) measurements of anthropogenic CO2 are only one quarter of a 0.004% mole fraction out of 4.2 billion kilometers of atmosphere then obviously a mole fraction of 0.001% is not going to control or influence in anyway the other 0.003% mole fraction of CO2. The tiny amount of CO2 compared to 4.2 billion kilometers of atmosphere makes a 100 billions tones look like a dot.
Somewhere along the way temperature attribution to human CO2 production has been grossly exaggerated beyond logic, obviously we are seeing the result of this gross error through failed model projections and failed and failing doomsday scenarios. 25 years of hype and policy has been a huge wasteful exercise.
Without attributing a temperature to the mole fraction measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere it becomes a dimensionless quantity of which it is and here is what it looks like.
http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/visualizing-400-parts-per-million/
More evidence of lack of warming: we were going to see the cherry blossoms in DC and were told they are delayed by at least a week. And here I thought spring has been arriving earlier every year?
Some day soon they’ll switch gears and say global cooling is going to kill us all, and the way to fight it is by doing the same exact things we’ve been doing to fight global warming.
It ain’t about the climate. It’s about control over the peasants.
“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.”
How convenient. He know that the last cooling was about 30+ years. THen we warm again. He is mimicking the normal 60-70 year warming/cooling pattern that we have followed for 100s of years. The fact is that the warming they predicted has failed totally and that clearly CO2 is NOT doing what he claims. For CO2 to continue to rise and have no warming for 30-40 years clearly indicates that the warming we had recently could NOT have been due to CO2.
I feel we are already in a Mini Ice that started in 2008. Man made static is distorting the data and Man made BTU Heat emmisions is keeping flat temps. Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell.
Man’s BTU consuption and heat relaeased into the atmosphere every day is like having 4 volcanios world wide releasing BTU heat into the atmosphere. One is in the sky for all the Jet engins Blower BTU heat exhust. N hem is where nost of the BTU heat energy is being released.
Please comment, sorry for typos, mobil post.