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.
TheInquirer says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
If the facts don’t suit your argument, make up ones that do. After all, it’s worked for the last 25 years.
I quote:
‘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.” ‘
I beg to differ. It is a delusion because past temperatures have been falsified to show warming where none existed. These tricks so far are found in ground-based temperatures such as GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC. So far they have been unable to doctor satellite records and that is why they all pretend that satellites do not even exist. The satellite record goes back to 1979 and begins with a series of ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, for 18 years. During this period temperatures go up and down by half a degree while global mean temperature stays constant. This is another standstill longer than the present one but we have not been told about it. What ground-based temperature curves have been showing instead is a warming they call “late twentieth century warming” that looks impressive but is a complete fraud. That was true until late last fall when I discovered that all three ground-based temperatures in synch simply changed their temperature data for the eighties and nineties to conform to satellite data. Nothing was said about it and it has not appeared on long-term temperature curves yet. But it means that the satellite era standstill from 1979 to 1997 should appear on all new renditions of the above land-based temperature curves from now on. This long standstill was followed by the super El Nino of 1998, the highest El Nino peak in a century. It carried so much warm water across the ocean that a step warming followed. In four years, global temperature rose by a third of a degree and then stopped. There has not been any warming since then and there was none back to 1979 as I just explained. This leaves no room for any greenhouse warming since 1979. And the step warming brought to us by the super El Nino and not some imaginary greenhouse effect is responsible for the very warm first decade of this century. Hansen’s observation that nine out of ten warmest years fall into this period says nothing about the existence of global warming. They are warm simply because they sit on top of the warm platform the step warming created for them. I pointed this out three years ago in “What Warming?” but nobody listened. I am gratified that all three ground-based temperature curves have finally taken notice.
Whether it’s temps are warming or cooling or stagnant, some men will blame Man for it and claim to have “the answer”. That answer, when implemented, will result in some men having more authority over other men.
TYPO! “Whether it’s temps are warming or cooling or stagnant,”
Should be: “Whether temps are warming or cooling or stagnant,”
I find the way David Whitehouse states things reveals how he gives more weight to computer models than actual observation. Take his first statement:
What he should have said is:
Models should always be the (possibly incorrect) variable, not observed temperature—the foundation of reality. It’s as if the world isn’t obeying their climate models!
For shame!
Then it goes on:
The Economist correctly points out that ~100 billion tonnes of carbon has been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010 and the mismatch is the biggest puzzle facing climate scientists. They state:
That’s only because so many equate “Global Warming” with CO2. However, there’s little evidence now that CO2 is the culprit “climate scientists” think it is.
That’s the crux of the whole argument and satisfies the explanation Whitehouse is looking for.
I’m not sure if anyone else noticed this and posted it. If so, sorry for the redundancy.
I found the wording of this bit interesting:
““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,””
That seems to be putting the theory above observations. Shouldn’t that be the other way around, like this?
“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of the consensus theory of climate change becoming incompatible with global observations,””
Anybody told M. Mann yet?
CET for March in the UK, currently at -2.6c http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html and could drop further, every month this year has been colder than the previous month, hope that stops soon, by the way is this what they mean by global warming or just weather?
Keith Gordon
Actually, this is rather demeaning for the vast majority of the population that a) there has been a 20-year hiatus and they were not told or they were assumed to be too stupid to look it up themselves from their own taxpayer-funded data systems, b) this lack of trend is close to invalidating all of the climate model predictions their carbon tax schemes and policies are based on, and c) they have to resort to quoting The Economist magazine to get at the truth in secondary sources of information! They are laughing at them in the back rooms and behind the curtains of power and influence and yes they will press ahead with wrong policy and money plays until such time it stops working.
Worth noting that compared to the rest of the world Australia has a huge number of the most rabid Warmists embedded in positions of authority. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, the various Environmental bodies, Carbon Councils, and State Broadcasters like the ABC, incessantly bang on about ‘Climate Change’ mainly because the Government that supplies their funding has, for the last 6 years, been of the Warmist Tendency.
As the Green Labor Government spirals to oblivion, the strict ‘consensus’ enforced by the Political Wing of Warmism is crumbling.
James Griffin says: “…On top of that the biggest blunder was to factor in CO2′s ability to create heat as linear when it is logarithmic.”
In 1000 hours of following global climate blogs, I’ve never seen anyone do that. Have you a reference link, James?
Leif says…
“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…”
Okay, but with the 100-year low in the solar cycle coming up in combination with decline in the PDO, turning of the AMO and likely decline in Global sea surface temps after the 20 year flat line, there is going to be a need for continuous explanations of correlation vs. causation for an extended period and with high frequency. Better get the keyboard short cuts programmed now because you have your work cut out for you…….for say the next 15-25 years.
TheInquirer says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
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”.
Wow, did you miss any AGW talking points?
Ocean heat content rising? Citation please. Trenberth has been looking for it, he would like to know where it is too.
Seas rising? Yep ever since the LIA, same rate nothing new here
Arctic is melting? – admittedly on a downward trend since satellite records have been kept, possible inadvertant cherry picking since the satellite era coincided with the end of the 30 yr cold cycle, good news though, Antarctica is growing in area and thickness despite melting on the peninsula.
Weather gone Haywire? Based on . . . . . ?
If your furnace is on low heat, your fan is on low speed, all your local electrical auxillary heaters are off and your door is open , it should not be a surprise if your house gets colder inside.
In my judgement , these are are the main reasons[ in order of impact] why the global temperatures have been dropping the last 10 years and why there has been no furher warming for 16 years . It will go on for another 20-30 years. These are not short term cycles as some would have us believe
SOLAR
Lowest sunspot numbers in 100 years [since 1906]. Current cycle is very low. We could have three such low cycles in a row. Although the mechanism is not completely understood, low sunspot periods correlate with reduced global air and ocean temperatures when measured on a decadal basis.
GLOBAL SST
Global SST trend is negative or cooling during the last 10 years at a rate of 0. 007 C per year Northern Hemisphere oceans is cooling twice as fast as Southern Hemisphere. When solar cycles and ocean cycles are in sync and both are in decline or cooling, atmosphere temperatures also tend to decline.
AO
Winter AO was negative 3 of the last 4 years and declining from positive to negative since 1989. When the AO[ Arctic Oscillation] is negative like it was this past winter , more cold Arctic air creeps south with the presence of weakening westerlies.
STRATOSPHERIC WARMING
Sudden warming of the Stratospheric air sends cold stratospheric Arctic air to lower troposphere elevations which then spreads cold air from the Arctic to lower latitudes and brings freezing temperatures and cold winds.[ see events early 2013] Stratospheric warming events happen when large atmospheric waves called Rossby waves, rise beyond the troposphere altitudes and into the stratosphere.
‘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.’
May I recommend that Mr. Pachauri take a remedial course in ‘End Times Religious Beliefs’. Now, the wiggle words, “at least”, will likely get him off the hook, but only for so long. He needs to follow the successful ‘End Times’ religions and not the failures. The successful ETs always put their judgement days, their savior come back among us days, their world end days, at some nebulous time in the future which could maybe be like really soon enough to be scary, or maybe not quite so soon – keep ’em guessing. I mean, c’mon Mr. Pachauri, let’s not nail that damn date down. Keep it flexible, guy! I know you think ’30 to 40 years “at least”‘ has given you and yours enough breathing space for enough of those coin flips to flip in your favor. But don’t bet on it. Remember, those ET religions (which means all of them) which disappeared did so because they nailed a date down, and when that date came and went (as they always do) those very same religions, well, came and went too.
Whoops. On second thought, don’t listen to a word I said. We’ve got enough religions already.
TheInquirer says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
…
But there’s no puzzle over why the fringe dwellers are able to deceive. …
and WUWT shows why it remains at the fringe and happy to use a deception…
———————-
Sorry, what exactly is the deception you’re referring to?
Also, not that this particularly matters, but having won the bloggies for the Best Science Blog three years in a row, I think WUWT’s arguably a lot less fringe than SkS, for example.
vukcevic says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm
(blue & green curves)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMF.htm
changed to’ red & orange’, to match the NOAA’s geomagnetic map.
IPCC forecasts (starting when they made, not the hindcasts for which historic data was available) versus the observations to date.
http://s12.postimg.org/rit10tlpp/IPCC_Forecasts_vs_Obs_Feb_2013.png
Off by 0.30C for the forecasts made more recently to as much as 0.65C for forecasts made over 20 years ago.
TheInquirer says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
“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”.”
I don’t remember a prediction from the warmists “Weather will go haywire”. Is “haywire” warming or cooling? I do remember predictions of warming by the warmists… Yes I did hear the post facto explanations for “haywire” weather by the warmists…. but the hallmark of a theory is to make correct predictions, not correctly-sounding hindcasts… the arrow of time and all that…
Didn’t Hansen (or was it Mann) also say 6 or 7 years ago that, if temps did not increase for a period of ten years you’d have to question the validity of his theories?
So if we have to wait 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the trend, as Pachauri said, wouldn’t we still be waiting for proof of warming? I believe the count was 13 years when Hansen told us all we “had to act now”. Surely he should have kept quiet to see if that warming really did break a trend, putting us into… oooh, well, it would be later than now and the answer would be “No, the warming HASN’T broken any trend because it is no longer warming.”
So this CAGW nonsense SHOULDN’T HAVE BEGUN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
So… er… we spend all that money for what exactly? And why aren’t we looking more closely at Hansen and his motives AND those politicians who said, “Yes, all right, we MUST ACT NOW” without looking at the evidence or at least replication of the “science”?
Seriously, some trials are awaiting. Massive amounts of wasted money. Massive amounts of pocketed money. Massive numbers of increased deaths from fuel poverty and starvation the world over. Industry and economics on the point of collapse. All due to dodgy science by knowing participants (else they would have shown their data and methods).
This is NOT an accident. The is NOT a mistake. This is FRAUD – this is deliberate deception. To my mind, this is also TREASON – a willful act deliberately to bring down civilization through deindustrialization and economic destruction. It’s an attack on capitalism and on the security of our nations.
It’s time those responsible for a huge amount of pain and suffering are made accountable. It’s time we make fear-mongering without verifiable proof of the claims, ILLEGAL.
That would stop this problem popping up again and again and again. I can’t be the only one sick of watermelon tricks. We need to protect ourselves from those who seek to destroy our way of living simply because of their misguided concept that humans are some kind of blight on the planet. Their concepts surely should be THEIR problem – not OURS.
So wait, first Mann/Hansen blames burning coal for warming, now he blames burning coal for no warming?
The reporter Graham Lloyd was cast out of the enviro journo’s union some time ago for apostasy.
One of his articles which most exploded his colleagues’ heads was about the uselessness of wind turbines, where he reported Hamish Cummings work on the actual empirical CO2 savings of wind farms in South Australia (which has our largest wind industry). (Link to original ($) article here)
The Australian newspaper is also viscerally hated by our local Greens who use Rupert Murdoch’s name in the same way as the Koch’s name get used in the US. And for that you can give an assist to the brave Mr Lloyd.
Global Warming without warming is no warming.
Case closed.
Harold Ambler says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:02 am
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 …
Well according to Piers Corbyn, its not so much a matter of not selling your coat – as not taking it off. He now thinks the climate is in a definite slide into the cold. So wave your (gloved) hands if you wish – but do wear your coat as we drop who knows how far.
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=525&c=5