David Rose of the Mail on Sunday is having a go at the Committee on Climate Change for their denial of the points raised in his article last week and this graph, which was sourced from NCAR and used in the Economist article noted on WUWT.
Rather stubborn, these blokes.
Excerpt:
The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.
We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.
Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised . . . Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.’
He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.
Our graph earlier this month was reproduced from a version first drawn by Dr Ed Hawkins, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Last week it was reprinted as part of a four-page report in The Economist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is reassuring to know that someone ( most likely office cleaner, or a climate change weekend dissident) from the University Park, the Pennsylvania State University (IP Address:128.118……..), with high quality monitor (Resolution: 1920×1200, Win7) is reading this website; not that I would expect Dr. Mann to be in the office today, but if however unlikely, then he might be interested in this .
I hate to be a party pooper, but the average temperature (black line) is still in the 95% pink model’s margin of error. It looks like it will be out soon but they technically aren’t wrong yet. Just sayin’.
Sir Brian Hoskins insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised .’
I agree that the scientific basis for significant long term climate risks remains robust not becasue of potential unprecedented global warming as he implies but because of the upcoming 30 years of colder weather like UK is now having .He is doing exacltly the opposite to help the people by advising the taking of valuable funding which is urgently needed[ even today] for fuel and energy and spending it on subsidies which will do little to change the climate . There is a potential that if the next cold spell is as bad as the most recent past one between 1962-1987, 3 out of every 4 winters could be colder than normal. This is exactly what has already been happening since after 2007 where 4 of the last 5 winters have been below average and some at record lows or record cold months. UK Winter temperatures have been dropping for 6 years now after 2007. Unless another sun appears on the UK horizon , the global temperatures can only go down as almost all of the various major climate variables or sources of forcing are all pointing to cooling and they typically last at least 30 years . It appears to me that it is truly tragic that scientifically misinformed people still advise the government of Uk on climate .
richardscourtney says:
March 31, 2013 at 11:42 am
The temperature measurements were made decades ago and GISS does not have a time-machine to go back and make more of them. But the GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why? In the absence of an answer to this question it has to be assumed that GISSTEMP is so indeterminate as to be worthless.
—————————————————————————————————
The part that (almost) concerns me more is the fairly regular adjusting of more recent measurements. Given that this has been the “biggest crisis mankind has ever faced” for the past couple of decades it strikes me that there is no excuse for getting measured temperatures within the past decade so wrong that they need adjusting – certainly not without 100% reliable metadata for station moves, instrumentation changes and so on to justify and quantify the adjustment.
After all, they say this is our grandchildren’s future we’re playing with – don’t we owe to to them to at least get the instrumental data right?
Clearly, temperature doesn’t tell the full story about climate. Time to abandon those pesky thermometers and turn to the anger scale which is much more suitable to describe a complex phenomenon like this. It may also sell better in the mass media.
For those who think that predictions for unprecedented global warming are “robust” after 16 years of no warming of which the last 10 years actually show a temperature decline , consider these climate factors :
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.
NAO
Winter NAO level has been declining since 1989 and slowly trending negative. A negative NAO [ North Atlantic Oscillation] brings cold air to Northern Europe and more cold air outbreaks and more snowy winters for Eastern North America. There are weaker winter storms crossing the Atlantic Ocean
PDO
Mostly negative since September 2007
Larger area of colder water in the eastern Pacific than in the central and western Pacific giving cooler atmosphere temperatures along western coast of North America . This weather is then blown east by the westerlies .
AMO
Still positive but shows some decline [seasonal?] AMO could go negative this decade. When it goes negative we can expect cooler temperatures in Western Europe and Eastern North America
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. When the running 11 year average sunspot number gets to about 60, the global temperatures level off and when it gets to around 40- 50 , the global temperatures start to decline like they are doing at the present . Currently it is at 35 which compares with the colder global temperatures that existed around 1700-1730, 1800-1830, and 1880-1920
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.
GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMP
Global annual temperatures have been flat for 16 years but the temperature trend shows a decline during the last 10 years at 0.007 C per year
GLOBAL WINTER TEMP
The Northern hemisphere winter temperature anomalies show a declining trend for the last 16 years. This cooling is most evident at areas well inland. The year 2012 was the 4th snowiest since 1967, the start of hemispheric snow extent records. Berlin Germany has had 5 winters in a row below normal and is having its coldest March since records began in 1880. UK is having its coldest March temperatures in 50-100 years of 2.5 C .Only 1917, 1937, 1947 and 1962 had comparable low temperatures.
EL NINO
There is a lack of strong climate altering El Ninos. During typical past cool cycles the number of strong climate altering El Ninos drops to one per decade compared with 2 during the recent warm cycle. We may not have another El Nino for 3-5 years.
SUDDEN STRATOSPHERIC WARMING [SSW]
Stratospheric warming events happen when large atmospheric waves called Rossby waves, rise beyond the troposphere altitudes and into the stratosphere where they cause the stratosphere air to be compressed and warmed The process can then lead to changes in the high altitude wind directions from east to west , bring these high altitude easterlies down lower and move the jet stream further south. Some time it can split the polar vortex in two This results in colder Arctic air coming further south both over North America and Northern Asia and Europe. Recently [since 1998] these SSW events have become more frequent and earlier in the winter.
Small correction – the original graph that the Daily Mail redrew was on a NCAS (not NCAR) blog here:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/
Ed.
I didn’t see a link to the actual CCC response here: theccc.org.uk/blog/climate-science-remains-robust-despite-claims-in-the-mail/
Interesting that three out of the four scientists referenced by The Mail actually disagree with their conclusions. JP
A C Osborn says:
March 31, 2013 at 11:12 am
Imagine if Lisa Jackson had owned a company that competed with the companies that want to build the Keystone pipeline.
There is a nice little article on Marco et al at RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/comment-page-1/#comment-325921
I asked the question “Where’s the Hockey Stick?” and it was quickly deleted.
Theo Goodwin says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:30 am “Will those that Rose criticizes address his criticisms? No.”
Wrong. See the CCC post. JP
Phil. says:
March 31, 2013 at 11:36 am
No, Scenario A is the path not taken as expected by Hansen, the actual emissions are close to Scenario C for all but CO2 which was close to A & B
/end quote
Phil, CO2 is assumed to be THE driver if climate change by Hansen. Since we did not cut CO2 at all surely the real world CO2 figures (scenario A) is the correct path we were suposed to have followed ?
In other words the prediction Scenario A is the CO2 curve empirical data followed, so we would expect the temperature (if Hansen’s prediction have any merit) to have been at a level that matches Scenario A CO2 ?
The fact that temperature is nothing like this falsifies Scenario A (& I won’t embarress you by asking where the tropo warming EVERY GCCM predicts)
GISTEMP agrees pretty well with HADCRUT until about 1998 when it has less of the El Nino effect and more of a rise after that, so definitely less flattening than HADCRUT post 1996 from these two differences, possibly because it has more polar variability in it.
Don’t know if this has been talked about but in the vein “We’re taking names.” Perhaps we should start heaping praise on those journalist who have ‘seen reason’ and used their ‘pen’ to fight the battle.
The NASA technical reports server will be unavailable for public access
while the agency conducts a review of the site’s content ………………………….
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/
More ‘Climate Porn’
The Arctic circle is likely to experience explosive “greening”
Iceshelves in Antarctica have been growing thanks to global warming.
A worrying rise in sea levels in 2011 and 2012.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10874694
Well, it is the first of April.
AGW-Skeptic and others note that error bands mislead for the years before a prediction or projection or forecast – call it what you will – was made. (badly phrased but clear enough)
So I was glad to see the note on this graph.
William Astley says:
March 31, 2013 at 10:02 am
The majority of the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm has predicted to occur in tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the earth’s surface. This warming should have created a hot spot (warming region) in the tropics at 10 km. There is no observed tropical hot spot. If there was a tropical hot spot the tropics would have warmed. There is no observed 20th century warming in the tropics
The 20th century warming that did occur is in high Northern latitudes, particularly in the Arctic and there is some warming in high Southern latitudes,
A very good summary.
It is deeply dishonest to claim surface warming without troposphere warming is evidence of GHG warming, when it is evidence of the exact opposite. It is evidence GHGs can not be the cause and the surface warming has some other cause.
Although, I don’t believe it is necessary to invoke GCRs to explain the late 20th century warming (which is not to say they don’t play some role). Aerosol reductions in the urbanized and industrialized belts of the northern and southern hemisphere adequately explain the warming and the aerosol reductions closely co-incide with the warming. In addition Arctic warming follows the shutting down of most of the Soviet era aerosol polluting industries in the 1990s.
Jim D says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am
“HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do”
Jim D,
Maybe there is a good reason for not including polar temperatures. Like the fact that there are so few temperature stations up there that Hansen needs to extrapolate temperature for thousands of kilometers to get what they claim to be a polar temperature record. Witness the creativity of Stieg in smearing Antarctic Peninsula warming across vast areas of Antarctic mainland. And are we witnessing polar amplification or the polar seesaw?
richardscourtney says:
March 31, 2013 at 11:42 am
“… GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why?”
It seems to be a well accepted meme at WUWT that data adjustments are clouded in mystery. This is wrong. Even a cursory look at the organisations websites reveal the scientific reasoning behind any adjustments. All three major temp records provide their rationales and protocols.
You may not agree with them. You may not like the results. But, to say they don’t exist is just plain wrong. JP
Re Marcott et al They now state”
“However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.” This paper needs to be withdrawn immediately from Science or retracted as it contradicts their previous conclusions that it has been the hottest century etc… see CA
Good for the Daily Mail. Challenging the alarm-ism that drives the politics. It won’t work though…Because we are run by the Con-Man.As explained here…
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/the-con-man/
There are so many ‘Scientific’ bureaucrats out there still telling lies about the climate and its records and most politicians believe them as they themselves tell whoppers and can see like-minded folk who think in the ‘right’ way. The politicians think that they can use these useful bureaucrats to garner more money for themselves and the bureaucrats think that they can use these useful politicians to secure a lucrative future for themselves. At some stage the public must intervene to break up this mutual admiration society. Tar, feathers and a rail are admirable suggestions.
I’m on my fourth reading of Atlas Shrugged–the epic novel about a world turned topsey-turvey when Men of the Mind (top industrialists, philosophers, businessmen, legal scholars, musicians and the like) go on strike by withholding their productivity (actually, they simply adopt the moral code of the majority that has demanded the rights to their production for centuries) . This majority (called Looters) have rejected truth as the basis of their moral code and without the Men of the Mind upon which they feed, the earth is soon cleansed because the Looters can’t survive the resulting famine and wars they inadvertently bring upon themselves (a classical case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg).
We have a parallel with Climate Alarmists–men who reject truth, have adopted fantasy because of their desire to worship their own intellect, who demand we spend unimaginable sums of money on geoengineering based on faulty conclusions while adopting energy policies that destroy economies, nations, and potentially much of earth’s population.
In Atlas Shrugged, it states that contradictions can’t exist–that if such are found, a simple check of the premises will find that one of them is wrong. There’s now a big contradiction between what the Mail and the CCC say about Earth’s temperature. A simple check with the instrumental record shows the Mail is right and the CCC is wrong. But if policies based on the CCC’s fantasies continue unabated, these Alarmists would be equivalent to Climate Looters and the end results would prove disastrous.
It is time for a sea change.
So, the Grantham Institute rears its ugly head again!
Given that their stated ‘mission’ is: ‘ to help shape decision-making’, and: ‘to provide authoritative analysis and assessment of research outputs, communicating it in a policy-relevant way to decision makers’, the NCAR graph is rather becalming and it does hint at declining relevance. Sir Brian will have had his buttons pushed. So then, one wonders how he copes with IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007)?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-ar5-graph-shows-ipcc-analysis-methodology-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/