I received a number of emails about the newly published Guemas et al (2013) paper titled “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade”. It’s paywalled. The abstract is here. It reads:
Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now. Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions. Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.
Not too surprisingly ClimateProgress has a post New Study: When You Account For The Oceans, Global Warming Continues Apace about the paper.
The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005.
Figure 1
###########
Figure 2
The abstract also mentions a new-found ability to predict slowdowns in warming. But the warming of tropical Pacific ocean heat content is dependent on the 3-year La Niña events of 1954-57, 1973-76 and 1998-01 and on the freakish 1995/96 La Niña, Figure 3. And the warming of sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans, Figure 4, depends on strong El Niño events.
Figure 3
###########
Figure 4
CLOSING
Can Guemas et al (2013) can predict 3-year La Niñas and freakish La Niñas like the one in 1995/96? Can they predict strong El Niño events, like those in 1986/87/88, 1997/97 1997/98 and 2009/10? Both are unlikely—the specialized ENSO forecast models have difficulty projecting beyond the springtime predictability barrier every year.
FURTHER READING
For further information about the problems with ocean heat content data, refer to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?
And for further information about the natural warming of the global oceans, see “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge.”
The Guemas et al. paper reminds me of a comment of Russel Madigan (modified) : ” squids have attributes in common with (CAGW proponents). They can change their colour quickly, squirt clouds of ink to confuse their followers, and swim backwards – they can see where they have been, but only have a very rough idea of where they are going.”
Where can I line up to get paid buckets full of money for some retrospective predictions?
winoceros says: “Here are the datasets they claim to be using.”
Thanks.
Unbelieveable lack of integrity, honesty and scientific knowledge and ability. These idiots should be put against the wall.
It’s this beleif in intelligent oceans. They automatically switch to absorption mode and back to radiation mode exactly when the hindforecasting models said they had. !!!!
This kind of smacks of alarmist desperation.
Just another instance of how climate models can always be made to ‘prove’ what their designer wants them to prove.
Climate models can be relied on to offer ‘proof’ of imminent Thermageddon. The facts say otherwise – a kind person might say that the reason for the difference is a combination of climate chaos and the huge amount of knowledge we do not yet know about climate. A not so kind person would comment that the problem with climate models is the intention of their designers.
Mother Earth carries on doing its own thing, ignoring the flawed prophecies of the Trenberths and Manns of this world.
None of this would matter if these models had not caused huge economic damage, as the response of gullible politicians was to launch what they thought was a vote winning strategy against an obvious non-problem. “Spare no expense” was their motto.
Physics Major says:
April 8, 2013 at 9:31 pm
A “retrospective prediction” must take the prize for the world’s greatest oxymoron.
I can retrospectively predict that the stock market will crash in 1929.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Oh no!!!!…..Dr Who….paging Dr Who……
@William Howard Astley …
It appears the only observation that will stop the retort: “the heat is hiding in the ocean”, is planetary cooling.
Um… no. If the whole planet cools, you will find that the climate change algorithms will be altered to suggest that the missing heat is on the moon….
“Predict retrospectively” –
Their ability to make predictions about the past is obviously cutting edge, but their ability to predict the future is non-existent. They are thrashing about like tadpoles with wild suggestions to avoid having to admit that their CO2 hypothesis is disproven and they will be having their money supply cut off soon.
My retrospective prediction is that is that [climate science is infallible and they are all idiots]
sorry rephrase that: is that climate science is infallible and they are all idiots
I notice you use the NODC data for the ocean heat content.
does this mean you accept their finding of a gain in OHC of around 5×10^22 Joules in total down to 2000m over the last decade. What error bars or degree of uncertainty do you think that figures has?
The graphs you show do not give any source other than NODC, but I am unable to find the data at their site. Could you indicate the source of the data and the graphs? The Pacific tropical ocean graph only covers a very narrow band over the equator to a depth of 700m, it represents a very small percentage of the total ocean. The Atlantic band covers the whole Atlantic basin, but includes large sections of the African and American continental landmass. Perhaps that is how NODC define the Atlantic, but I have been unable to find a link to that data.
One of the most obvious signs of increasing ocean heat content would be the thermal expansion of the oceans. Now that it is possible to get some estimate of where the water is in the hydrological cycle from the GRACE data it is clear that there has been a significant component of thermosteric sea level rise.
I suppose it is easy to scorn a phrase like “retrospectively predict” with its apparent temporal contradiction if you are ignorant of the context in which it is used.
In this instance the paper is less about confirming the reality of the warming deep oceans and that as the sink for the PetaJoules of energy that the TOA imbalance creates.
It is more to do with the fact that the data and observations make sense when scientists apply their best understanding of the underlying physics of the system.
The value of this paper is the finding that physics that researchers use to explain how thermal energy is distributed in the climate can ‘retrospectively predict’ the actual observed data. That helps validate the physics used to analyse the climate.
Re: Levitus et al 2000, see “Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not “Global Warming” by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson”, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
“These large vertical movements occur in polar seas, where accelerated radiation makes the surface waters greatly colder than the deeper waters.
In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9°C, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up,
regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying “thermal lag” is going to take place. It is clear that there’ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting specter.”
Phillip Bratby says:
April 8, 2013 at 10:52 pm
I can predict retrospectively the winner of last weekend’s Grand National.
========================================
I bucked a decades-long wallet-cooling trend and predicted it in advance 🙂
I therefore have no chance of making it as a climate scientist but, on the plus side, I do have a nice wad of cash in my pocket
“…the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period.”
How much longer will it be before they notice there’s been no warming in this decade, either? Perhaps by 2023 they’ll be able to retrospectively predict what the Earth’s mean temperature was for the 2010-2020 period (unless they’re too busy retrospectively predicting the stock market by then).
Too bad the paper is pay-walled. I’m curious to find out where exactly they found Trenberth’s missing heat, and why it only shows up in modeled data and not in real-world measurements. I would also like to know why it took so long for them to predict the past decade-long pause in warming given that “the science has been settled” for some time now. They aren’t trying to claim they’ve discovered something new in climate science, are they? Al Gore will want to remove their heads for blasphemy.
Question 1 is english the first language of these people ?
Question 2 if english is their first language what diabolic school did they graduate from?
Question 3 what did they major in ?
Question 4 was it climate science ?
Question 5 how did they get passing grades with retrospective predictions ?
AAHHAAA now I understand how they passed, retrospective predictions [ last time I looked it was called cheating]
The comparison between retro-proactiveness and globalist behaviour is obvious and there is a lack however that the land mass equivalent is direct in proportion to sea temp anomalities respective of the mean temperature. This is one of the most obvious signs that the thermal lag is getting into place. However this could indicate the source of data with a very small percentage of thermal energy absorption and the nucleus-effect is stronger where the temp/molecular structure compares directly to the hydrological cycle straight in line with ozone temperatures. But lets get it straight. The distibuted climate trends can be narrowed to the NODC data which implies strong flux behaviours? Would this be the et-al nino behaviour?
“Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer has been proposed…”
Do they have any empirical data that supports their proposal?
Climate epicycles.
“retrospective prediction”. This is the very essence of pseudo-science.
Its EXACTLY the same as someone reporting a premonition after the event.
Historically, retrospective predictions are always more accurate.
What maroons.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how the ocean can be significantly warmed either by the atmosphere, or downwelling radiation, which Bob confirms only penetrates a few mm below the surface.
The only logical explanation is the sun.
There are a number of comments on this post that are mockingly dismissive of “retrospective predictions”. It is, however, an entirely reasonable thing to do. If one has a model that one wishes to use to predict the future it is sensible to ask the question “what would my model have predicted in the past”. Consider only data up to some previous point in time, use that data in your model and compare what your model predicts with what actually happened. As far as I can tell, there is nothing unreasonable about doing such a thing. To mock such a process either indicates a level of ignorance or a fundamental bias against any kind of climate science with which you disagree.
Thomam
Congrats – can you buy us all a drink?
I’m going to go to Ladbrookes this lunch time and see whether they will accept my retrospective prediction on the National – £100 quid on Aurora’s Encore to win (at 66-1, and some people got 80-1)
dp says:
April 8, 2013 at 9:41 pm
///////////////////////////////////
That is exactly the point.
Why are the oceans now sucking up heat (energy0, but did not do so during the 1920s-1940s warming, or during the late 1970s – late 1990s warming?
What is the process involved? How can it switch on and off? These questions relating to the mechanism need to be answered before the latest claim to explain away the lack of recent warming can be taken seriously.
If there is some unknown mechanism whereby the oceans at times will suck up this energy, but not at other times then this raises the interesting prospect, namely: perhaps the the late 1970s – late 1990s warming was not caused by CO2 but was simply caused by the oceans notsucking up the energy and sequestering it to depth.