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.”
@DirkH There was a satellite called the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) and there is an instrument called Clouds and Earth’s Radiation Energy System (CERES) which has been on a number of NASA satellites. Measurements from ERBS and CERES are consistent with a long-term energy imbalance of about 0.5 W per square metre. It’s noisy data and they’ve only operated for a few decades, but there are indeed measurements and it is not just based on models.
Here is the Warmists’ next line of defence in the face of any continued lack of warming or cooling. Over at ThinkProgress I read this:
In other words hidden heat can be used as a thermometer and will in future represent global mean temperature.
@-To the left of centre
“The year is 2013 and I have data from 1950 till today. If I only consider data from 1950 till 1990 and then use my model to predict what will happen between 1990 and 2013, this will give me an indication of how well my model works. ”
Interesting example.
If you do that and use a straight linear extrapolation it under-estimates the actual warming by a significant amount. The ‘null hypothesis’ of no net future trend would fail by double that. Try it at woodfortrees or any climate data graphing system of your choice.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:1990/trend
Let us hope that the recent 12 year trend is not as misleading as the 1950-1990 trend!
Friends:
This is off-topic. I write to provide an aside for amusement and do not intend to deflect the thread from its subject..
In his attempt to pretend my post (at April 9, 2013 at 4:31 am) had not rubbished his nonsense, ‘To the left of centre’ mis-spells my family name.
The mis-spelling does not offend me in any way. And it raises the subject of the meaning of my family name which may amuse some who do not know it.
(Incidentally, I assume the mis-spelling may have been a simple error because there are several spelling of my family name in current usage and, therefore, it was not intended to hinder people finding my post which exposed his fallacious nonsense.)
I use the spelling of Courtney but ‘To the left of centre’ used the alternate spelling of Courtenay.
That alternate harps back to the Norman-French origin of my family name which was
‘Coure de nez’ (pronounced cor-de-nay). This is an insulting reference to the family nose and it literally translates as “short of nose”.
Some Americans give their children my family name as their given name.
I assume they see the infant, say, “That child has a stubby nose so we will call him/her Courtney”.
Richard
@- DirkH says:
“If izen or any other warmist can prove me wrong by showing the measurements that show such an imbalance, please bring it on.”
Brung.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract
” We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models….We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. ”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureGeosci
“Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. ”
http://science.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/
“The radiation budget represents the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing thermal (longwave) and reflected (shortwave) energy from the Earth. In the 1970’s, NASA recognized the importance of improving our understanding of the radiation budget and its effects on the Earth’s climate. “
My retrospective prediction: Louisville 82, Michigan 76.
Please send boatloads of prize money to: The Right Honourable Brad Crawford, 527…
I predicted, over a year ago, that this study like this would be done by someone. I bet many other readers of this most excellent blog (were else can one engage in a conversation regarding the mathematical underpinnings of cross-correlation) have made similar predictions.
BTW, I don’t trust anyone who would use a sentence like ” … but also enhances the socio-economic relevance…” in a scientific paper!
coalsoffire says:
April 9, 2013 at 7:58 am
“It’s almost magical how that ocean sops up or releases the extra heat to support the theory. You can’t argue with magic. Especially retrospective magic.”
Very well said. Their models are magical. At some point, they really should admit that their models cannot substitute for scientific theory.
Jim Ryan says:
April 9, 2013 at 6:39 am
Sorry, but all hypotheses worthy of the name “science” can be used for prediction. Some will generate false predictions and are rejected. Others generate true predictions and are partially confirmed by them.
Prediction and retrodiction (hindcast) are symmetric. If you can predict then you can retrodict and vice-versa. If you cannot predict then you cannot retrodict. See, in science, it all comes down to prediction.
We know in principle that models cannot predict. In addition, we know from Alarmists behavior that models cannot predict. Everytime an Alarmists claims to make a prediction about climate that prediction turns out to be conclusively falsified. But Alarmists will not agree that their models are falsified; therefore, one can only conclude that Alarmists believe that their models do not predict.
Considering the paper Guemas et al (2013), it appears that the credibility of climate science peer review has been lessened somewhat of late in the house that the journal Nature built.
John
A surfeit of confidence over competence.
Wekl done Thomam; 66 to 1 I recall (or is that predict?)
1950 to 1990 is only 40 years, that’s less than the period of important cycles like the PDO and AMO (caveats acknowledged about their cyclic nature).
I strongly recommend you use multiple cycles of data and don’t use a linear extrpolation.
In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/ the author claims to have used 2500 years of data and in figure 5 he has “Prediction of temperature trends on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau for the next 120 years. Blue line, initial series; orange line, calibration series, 464 BC–834 AD; purple line, verification series, 835–1980 AD; red line, forecasting series, 1980–2134 AD.”
The verification series verifies extremely well. The forecasting series says there will be (was) a temperature peak at 2006 and the next local minimum is at 2068. If it verifies, the warmists should give up well before then.
@richardscourtney My misspelling of your name was purely a mis-type. I’m happy that you’re not offended, but no offense was intended.
I suspect that you do not understand why I chose not to really respond to your earlier comment. If you think it’s because I can’t think of a suitable response, you’d be mistaken. It was more based on my interpretation of what your earlier comment said about you, than any inability on my part to respond suitably.
@- MattN
” In order for the heat to get to the 700-2000m layer, it has to pass through the 0-700m layer first, and the bouys would see it. ”
Could you define what the ‘IT’ is that you claim the ARGO buoys will see.
I know it is ‘heat’, but do you think that will show as a temperature pulse with the shallower ocean warming first and then the deeper layers slowly catching up? Or a change in salinity as that affects density driven convection more than temperature in the deep ocean.
@-“The bouys just haven’t seen it…”
What is the fingerprint of the passing heat that you think they SHOULD have seen if, as the mainstream believe, this energy is in the deep ocean?
I haven’t reall all 100+ comments, so this may have been said already. If the ocean is currently absorbing heat, what changed from when it wasn’t absorbing heat. It seems if it absorbs heat now, it would have been absorbing heat all along.
Jim2: sun shines, ocean absorbs hear. clouds and other factors affect whether the water warms or cools more… such as evaporation, cloud cover during day vs night. The oceans seem to be cooling somewhat not warming now. Some predict oceans will cool further as sun continues its current solar cycle 24 which is the weakest in 75 to 100 years. It’s more complex than this.. but it’s a start, I think.
@izen I’m a little confused by your comment. I don’t mention how my hypothetical model works and the time period I’ve chosen is purely illustrative. I was simply trying to illustrate how one could use past data to make “retrospective predictions” to test how a hypothetical model would have worked had you used it at some point in the past and to then check how the results from that model compared with what actually happened. I don’t even mention the term linear regression.
Oh good, then the next 20-year IPCC forecast will be dead on! I have total confidence they’ve solved all the problems with predicting climate.
Seriously, when they can predict the regional anomaly for the next year within .1 degrees for 9 out of 10 years I’ll consider the possibility of someday taking their long-term forecasts seriously.
To the left of centre:
Thankyou for your post at April 9, 2013 at 9:54 am. Please be assured that I was sincere in saying I was not offended by your mis-spelling of my name.
You also refer to my post at April 9, 2013 at 4:31 am. I note that you again do not state where my post is, and I understand that because it explains why your post at April 9, 2013 at 3:43 am is pseudoscientific nonsense.
You say to me
Please be assured that your suspicion is misplaced because I am fully aware that you do not lack an ability “to respond suitably”. However, you chose not to apologise for writing misleading, pseudoscientific nonsense, although you do have the ability to apologise.
And, yes, my post did say of me that I am willing to call-out anonymous trolls who post untrue nonsense as you did.
Richard
So to validate this paper they should be able to predict what hasn’t happened yet, ie what does their model say will happen to the earths temperature over the next five to ten years?
@- To the left of centre says
” I don’t mention how my hypothetical model works and the time period I’ve chosen is purely illustrative. ”
I know.
I was stretching the hypothetical past its Young’s limit…..
I just found it amusing that following your numbers and using very simplistic models of ‘no change’ or ‘linear trend’ both retrospective predictions would have been way off.
It seems to need a rather better physic based model to correctly hindcast the actual changes.
@richardscourtney I don’t know what evidence you have to accuse me of being a troll. Anonymity in itself does not make it so. As far as I can tell, there are many posting here who are anonymous. I am commenting as an individual and am, I believe, avoiding any kind of personal insults. My reason for not responding fully to your initial comment about by comment is that I typically engage with those who I think I may learn something from or who appear to be willing to learn something from me. Since neither of these conditions appear to be satisfied in your case, I see no real point in engaging in any kind of debate or discussion. I see no evidence in your most recent comment to suggest that this characterisation isn’t reasonable.
I see no reason to apologise for my comment. It was a perfectly reasonable comment that I would be happy to debate/discuss with anyone who was willing to refrain from referring to what I say as pseudo-scientific nonsense.
@- jim2
” If the ocean is currently absorbing heat, what changed from when it wasn’t absorbing heat. ”
The amount of downwelling longwave radiation from rising CO2.
If you were to plot the SST vs the ocean heat content for the same area, you would see an increase in heat content beyond the temperature. That would be the deeper than surface heat energy. However, you would have to see the data for that.
Sea temperature below surface vs oceanic heat content would show if this deeper heat content makes sense. If it doesn’t, then there (probably) has been even deeper heat content added. For which you would have to see the data.
Going deeper changes the salinity and pressure, which on a time period of only 10 years I would think are stable (unless overturn is going to be a really rapid process, which I doubt considering the mass of the oceans). For a CHANGE you still have to have temperature to rise.