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.
Nick Stokes says:
March 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm
“The Inquirer says: March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
“Puzzle? The puzzle is how 16 years has become 20 within 2 months.”
Indeed, that’s the hockey stick of the year. We might reach the century by June.”
I think it depends on which dataset you use. RSS probably has the longest hiatus – not sure if its 20 years though.
Leif Svalgard.
“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…”
Ah, but Tallbloke is referring to Al Gores mansion, not the sun.
They do not understand how the world’s climate system works, no one does. They created models which fitted and produced historic results which matched and then matched a few years in the future, and then they jumped the gun. PUBLISH.
I read so many alarmist stories about the arctic melting etc. When the arctic melts more than normal it seems to be because of a -ve arctic oscillation. The arctic also appeared to have melted more in the LIA.
It occurred to me that if the arctic melts due to polar blocking (-ve AO) and the lower latitudes are more snow covered then the planet would have an increased albedo. This being due to the lower latitudes being more oblique to the sun and having more albedo effect that the arctic which presents a shallower angle to the sun. A totally natural negative feedback mechanism in effect. Perhaps a mega melt is something to be alarmed about for an entirely different reason.
Combined Solar and Earth’s influence on the climate via oceanic oscillations (the AMO) is clear to a few, but that may undermine their confidence in the views held.
If two oscillations of different frequencies are combined in a responding receptor, then a phenomenon known as “beating” arises.
Beating frequencies time line can be simply calculated as the sum Cos(A+B) and the difference Cos(A−B) of two primary components.
Resultant can be plotted directly by calculating Y = Cos (A + B) + Cos (A – B) but this doesn’t allow for the non-stationary phase shift in the original frequencies.
Alternatively phase difficulty this can be overcome by using a well known trigonometric identity
Y = 1/2 [ Cos (A + B) + Cos (A – B) ] = Cos A * Cos B
vukcevic says:
March 30, 2013 at 7:54 am
Combined Solar and Earth’s influence on the climate via oceanic oscillations (the AMO) is clear to a few, but that may undermine their confidence in the views held.
If two oscillations of different frequencies are combined in a responding receptor, then a phenomenon known as “beating” arises.
This works the other way too. It is quite common that a single periodic variation also has a variable amplitude [the sunspot number is a good example]. This will masquerade as beating of two different periods, where in reality there is only one. This is clear to a few, but may undermine the belief by others in cyclomania.
Leif Svalgaard (3/29/13 11:47 am) takes Tallbloke to task for crediting the Sun for Earth’s temperature. LS 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… ”.
What the Sun “has very little to do with” is any Global Climate/Circulation/Catastrophe Model (GCM), and that is by design. IPCC eliminated the Sun because it didn’t vary enough for its equilibrium models of climate which man was disrupting. It did so by neglecting cloud feedback.
In 2010, LS with E.W. Cliver authored a paper, “Heliospheric magnetic field 1835-2009”, elaborating on his “Inter-Diurnal Variability (IDV) index”. They confirm their results explicitly by relying on Wang et al. [2005], the preferred TSI model relied on by IPCC in defense of GCMs. AR4 ¶2.7.1.2.1.1, “Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance”, p. 190. That same Wang model driving an elementary network with a couple of long lag time constants is sufficient to predict the Global Average Surface Temperature over the history of thermometers. It does so with an accuracy comparable to IPCC’s smoothed estimator for GAST from HadCRUT3.
That prediction confirms the Wang (2005) model with the HadCRUT3 model. It eliminates the impossible, the assumption of Earth in any equilibrium. It accounts for ocean heat capacity and transport lags, effects not represented in the GCMs. It accounts for the most powerful feedback force in climate, cloud albedo, negative for warming and positive for TSI, and in part known to IPCC experts but omitted from the GCMs. The prediction shows that the signatures of man on climate are fantasy. It shows IPCC’s Climate Sensitivity is far too large. The prediction also shows GAST departing from the HadCRUT3 prediction and instead flattening beginning in 2000!
The cause is AGW; the holy grail is anthropogenic CO2. And Tallbloke was correct.
Andor says:
March 30, 2013 at 6:03 am
” The same idiots believing they landed on the moon are the same believing in AGW. ”
A mere twelve humans have walked on the moon. These are the guys your talking about?
Personally, I know NASA went to the surface of the Moon 6 times. And now contrary to NASA, I’m pretty sure a trace gas doesn’t drive the Earth’s temperature.
Alas the Golden age of NASA is long gone.
OOPs. “You’re” not “Your”.
Jeff Glassman says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:27 am
In 2010, LS with E.W. Cliver authored a paper, “Heliospheric magnetic field 1835-2009”, elaborating on his “Inter-Diurnal Variability (IDV) index”. They confirm their results explicitly by relying on Wang et al. [2005], the preferred TSI model relied on by IPCC in defense of GCMs.
Not at all, that is a gross misrepresentation. What we referred to was our confirmation of their theoretical prediction that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field should scale with the square root of the Sunspot Number. Figure 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:11 am
……..
Agree, chance of either is fifty-fifty.
However, if there is a set of related natural events satisfying both sides of the equation
Y = Cos A * Cos B
there is overwhelming probability that the phenomenon known as “beating” is the physical reality.
Btw, once you institute the flat solar cycles amplitude, going all the way back to 1700, you are more than welcome to join the ‘cyclomania’ club as a fully paid up member..
vukcevic says:
March 30, 2013 at 9:22 am
Agree, chance of either is fifty-fifty.
No, you argue that the chance of winning the lottery is 50-50.
However, if there is a set of related natural events satisfying both sides of the equation
Y = Cos A * Cos B there is overwhelming probability that the phenomenon known as “beating” is the physical reality.
No, just an example of confirmation bias.
Btw, once you institute the flat solar cycles amplitude, going all the way back to 1700, you are more than welcome to join the ‘cyclomania’ club as a fully paid up member..
More nonsense.
lsvalgaard says:
March 30, 2013 at 9:01 am
……
Jeff Glassman says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:27 am
……
and as Vukcevic discovered, the Earth responds to it in a strong and unmistakable way:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
@TheInquirer –
There was a time when YOUR politics (obviously loony left) were “the fringe,” and in fact they still are. Your post reeks of desperation.
Also, the FACT is that not only are 1998-2013 temps lower than 1980-1998, but 1980-1998 were considerably lower than the 1930s. The downward trend extends back 80 years, not 15 or 16 or 20.
DirkH says:
March 30, 2013 at 4:00 am
Roy says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:11 am
“Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?”
The Great Depression was a bubble bursting; inflated by a spending binge initiated by Hoover.
That is a very US-centric view of history. There was a Great Depression in Europe too. There were booms and slumps long before Keynesian economics was invented. Your explanation of the current crisis puts all the blame on central bankers and absolves the commercial banking system. Who was it who wanted the Glass–Steagall Act to be repealed?
By adopting a selective approach to history it is easy to make any pet economic theory appear to fit the facts. Prediction is another matter – just like it is in climate science.
he fact is, this issue has been, and will continue to be, a political issue not a scientific one. When using the scientific method, experimental results (recent climate data) that do not conform to the hypothesis (global warming theory and its models) should either falsify it, or require revision. You will note that large amounts of data have accumulated over the past decade and a half that are consistent neither with the models nor the hypothesis. Yet, the scientists (and I use the word advisedly) behind the hypothesis doggedly hold on to their ideas, as though the import of their ideas trumps scientific falsification. You know you are treading in non-scientific quicksand when global warming advocates used a 17-18 year warming period (following a period of ice-age fears) to insist on the reality of global warming, and then say that 30-40 years of hiatus would be necessary demonstrate global warming is not a problem. In other words, one set of standards for me, and another for thee.
Er, because they’re not rising?
Leif Svalgaard (9:01 am) claims my characterization of his paper (8:27 am) on his IDV index, namely that he relied on Wang et al. [2005], is a “gross misrepresentation”. He claims instead that his work confirmed Wang’s “theoretical prediction that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field should scale with the square root of the Sunspot Number. Figure 8 of [his 2010 paper]”
The caption of his Figure 8 reads:
>>Figure 8. Average yearly values of IDV09 (dark blue curve) compared with median yearly values (light blue curve) and compared with published IDV05 (red curve). Svalgaard and Cliver [2010] p. 7 of 13.
where the authors inform us
>>Our determination of IDV09 is essentially identical to that of IDV05 except for the inclusion of more data. S&C, id., p. 1 of 13.
Dr. Svalgaard’s reliance on his Figure 8 is to no avail. It says nothing about LS confirming Wang, or vice versa, nor anything about the power of the dependence on the number of sunspots.
What LS actually said in this matter is this:
>>If these active regions emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment WILL scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average HMF strength will tend to increase as R^1/2 (for a detailed discussion, see Wang and Sheeley [2003] and Wang et al. [2005]). Caps added, id., p. 3 of 13.
First a relevant point of grammar: the second “will” in caps should be “would” because “Thus” links to the first sentence, a hypothetical. Now LS did not write that his work confirms anything at all, nor is he offering measurements that would confirm anyone’s prediction anywhere. He says that if the reader needs more information on how the average HMF [Heliospheric magnetic field] strength varies with R, see Wang. As I said originally, LS relies on Wang for his theory of the IDV index.
Now Wang et al. [2005] says in what is presumably the relevant part to LS:
>>As noted in §3, [near-Earth radial IMF [Interplanetary Magnetic Field, in this application equivalent to LS’s HMF] strength … averaged over each of the 26 solar cycles] increases roughly as R_tot [the sum … of … yearly group sunspot numbers] in model S2 but as R_tot^(1/2) in model S1; the linear scaling is consistent with the original aa time series, whereas the square root dependence accords with the smaller long-term increase in geomagnetic activity found by Svalgaard et al. ([2003]). Since a more realistic model would allow for variations in both the number and strengths of BMRs [Bipolar Magnetic Regions], we conjecture that an optimized aa index would lie somewhere between the original version and that of Svalgaard et al. Wang et al., id., p. 533.
Thus, in their ultimate graph of “Annual averages of TSI for 1713-1996”, Wang et al. use the average of their two models, S1 (square root) and S2 (linear). Id., Fig. 19, p. 537.
To be sure, what LS claimed in 2003 was little different than what he said in 2010. More recently, he only claimed “there is a good LINEAR CORRELATION between IDV … and the square root of the sunspot number, R.” Caps added. How good? Compared to what? What is the fit? His 2003 position was as uncertain and qualified:
>> The correct functional form (IF ANY) is, of course, UNKNOWN. We ARBITRARILY assume a relation of the form a + bR^ß. The Group Sunspot Number [7], RG, and the Zürich Sunspot Number, RZ, show the same dependency within the accuracy of the data. The fit (R^2 ~ 0.7) is best with an exponent ß NEAR 0.5. We CHOOSE ß = ½ … . Caps added, Svalgaard et al. (2003) pp. 2-3.
So Svalgaard and Cliver do not confirm Wang et al., but instead rely on the latter to explain their model. But, lo, instead of explaining LS’s squishy square root model, Wang et al.’s “detailed discussion” finds the reliance on the square root of the number of sunspots not sufficiently realistic.
The best confirmation of the Wang et al. [2005] model is that it leads to an accurate prediction of the global average surface temperatures estimated by HadCRUT3. This is not a confirmation of prediction by measurements, but confirmation of model by model, which seems always to be bilateral. Both Wang et al. and the Hadley folks are to be congratulated, once science emerges to prevail over the “gross misrepresentations” of climatology and blows away the haze of CO2.
lsvalgaard says:
March 30, 2013 at 5:57 am
Tim from Australia says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:43 pm
I am interested to know why you ridicule anybody who suggests that the Sun may have some part in driving our climate (or changes that have been observed). I find it amazing that you (or anybody for that matter) could assume that you know all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on this planet.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This argument applies equally well to those who assert that ‘it is the Sun, stupid’. They assume that we know enough about the Sun and its effect on this planet’ to be able to state that the Sun is the main driver of climate. The main driver turns out to be Jupiter, not the Sun. The Sun simply does not vary enough: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
——————————————————————————————————-
I agree with your comment Tim. Don’t be discouraged by Svalgaard’s response to your comment. He often uses this deflective defence to denigrate the people on this forum and likes to have the last word. This sort of response is an unfortunate trait and reflects badly on his ability to handle with civility opposing views. Svalgaard may well be an expert on the Sun per se but I would say based on his research record that the Sun’s influence on the Earths atmospheric and hydrological systems is outside his area of expertise. Perhaps we need to hear more of what Nir Shaviv has to say on this subject on interactions.
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Now just watch how LS responds to this post to prove my point.
Jeff Glassman says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Leif Svalgaard (9:01 am) claims my characterization of his paper (8:27 am) on his IDV index, namely that he relied on Wang et al. [2005], is a “gross misrepresentation”.
Amazing that you can misrepresent to grossly. Who knows best? You or the author of our paper.?
The caption of Figure 8 reads:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
“Figure 8. Yearly means of B derived from u and IDV (blue) and observed by spacecraft (red) as a function of the square root of the Zurich (International) sunspot number”
He says that if the reader needs more information on how the average HMF [Heliospheric magnetic field] strength varies with R, see Wang. As I said originally, LS relies on Wang for his theory of the IDV index.
We found back in 2003 http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf
“Fig. 7. Correlation between monthly means (since 1963) of the near-earth interplanetary magnetic field magnitude and the square root of the Zürich Sunspot Number.”
Now Wang et al. [2005] says in what is presumably the relevant part to LS:
“the square root dependence accords with the smaller long-term increase in geomagnetic activity found by Svalgaard et al. ([2003]).
So Svalgaard and Cliver do not confirm Wang et al., but instead rely on the latter to explain their model.
The relationship between IDV (and HMF B derived from IDV BnT = (2.06+-0.21) + (0.441+-0.021)IDV, R^2 = 0.869) and the square root of the sunspot number is an observed fact [discovered by us]. IDV is not derived from a model but from 1,375,000 daily measurements (3775 station‐years) of the geomagnetic field. The measurements select Wang’s model S1 as the better one to use. Back in 2003 it was uncertain where the relationship came from. With the theoretical suggestion by Wang, the relationship finds a natural explanation, confirming that a good model for Wang to use is his S1. Whatever his model is has no bearing on the observed IDV index.
once science emerges to prevail over the “gross misrepresentations”
But you have not yet emerged from your GROSS misrepresentation of my position.
An epic fail it is, where now 30 to 40 years are even mentioned
Thanks for showing what fools you are and would find it difficult for anybody to believe your nonsense. The goalposts are changing regularly because your theory has failed.
Just 8 years of actual global warming brought the scare out in Hansen’s 1988 testimonial. Now we are even to believe that 30 to 40 years are needed, we know you have failed and the science behind scary global warming scenarios falsified.
How long do you lot have to continue lying?
It is not warming any more because low cloud global levels have stopped declining. The much quieter sun has occurred precisely at the same time the jet stream has suddenly moved south in the NH and north in the SH. (largest affect so far in the NH) The natural climate shows that a longer period of non warming is almost upon us than warming period occurred in the first place..
It has not been warming this long because the warming wasn’t driven by CO2 in the first place.
Jeff Glassman says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
The best confirmation of the Wang et al. [2005] model is that it leads to an accurate prediction of the global average surface temperatures estimated by HadCRUT3.
Unfortunately Wang’s reconstruction is already falsified [and hence the agreement with the global temperature]. In the Wang reconstruction most of the increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum took place in the time since 1900. See: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png. Today we know that this increase did not happen, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”
Two decades of hiatus! Ok, then the temperature has never changed at all, you’re even worse than the Swedish climate contarians. Everything is big in America, smarter and, in your case, crazier 🙂
This reminds me of arguing against a tax-and-spend liberal, who’s pushing for an Olympic Games, or World’s Fair, or new arena, or whatever megaproject. Even when you run the numbers, and show them that there’s going to be a huge deficit, they’ll pull some “hidden benefits” number out of their rear end, which they use to show a net profit. Same thing here. When the numbers don’t show global warming, the warm-mongers invent “hidden global warming” to show AGW. E.g. ccean surface heat magically teleports from the surface to below 2000 metres, without first passing through the 700 metre level.
lsvalgaard says:
March 29, 2013 at 9:34 pm
“Solar activity now and the past several cycles is what it was a century ago and the climate is not.”
This is a highly debatable statement, Dr. S.
Walter Dnes says:
March 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Hello Walter, my email has a glitch in it so I cannot email you at the moment, but can you please tell me the maximum time that GISS, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 have at least a slight negative slope. (I assume you have all February numbers now. If not, I can give them to you.) Thanks! (WFT has not updated these since November or December.)