Reader Markx writes:
The title says it all here: “…Retrospective prediction…” indeed. How could a researcher keep a straight face and write such a title? (Maybe a subversive element at work?)
Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade
Virginie Guemas, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Isabel Andreu-Burillo
& Muhammad Asif
The Abstract:
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.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1863.html
Meanwhile, reality continues to be a bitch:
I am completely baffled as to why they would use the phrase “Retrospective prediction.”
Why not “retrospective modeling”, which is exactly what it was?
Perhaps there is a subversive element there wanting to expose the farce?
Or a climate scientist who figures that in this rock star world any publicity is good publicity?
Or, maybe just someone there who enjoys yanking chains?
Anthony,
Actually, global warming has not slowed down, it continues at a fairly steady pace as indicated by the heat increase rates going down to the 2000 meter level based on data collected by NOAA in the NODC and the WOD. ref. Levitus et al 2012
That said, I’m curious as to what you and your readers think about the following video produced by the National Academy of Sciences called ‘Climate Change: Lines of Evidence’
It’s only a basic overview of the science and I wish it had more detail. Maybe more in the future?
This is hardly anything new. The ‘science’ of AGW has used this method from the beginning. They build models to ‘explain’ recent observations with the prerequisite that models must support the AGW theory. When they get a model that ‘curve fits’ their very brief time frame, they proclaim that the existence of their model proves the theory!
The science of AGW is not an attempt to understand the reality of climate, it is a game academics play. The object is to build a model that supports the AGW theory AND fits recent observations. The game is getting harder and harder to win.
“How many researchers does it take to change a light-bulb? None if it’s a retrospective study, because the light-bulb has already changed itself.” From the Institute of Work and Health.
Clearly from the comments, WUWT readers get what;s going on here. Now, if we can just get the rest of the general public to be able to see the same thing, we will have this problem solved (the problem being the lack of science & alarmism, not CO2)
2020: In retrospect we predicted the drop in temperatures, global warming still threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2030: In retrospect we predicted the continued drop in temperatures, climate change still threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2040: We predict continuing falling temperatures, climate change threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2050: In retrospect we predicted the pause in falling temperatures, climate change still threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2060: In retrospect we predicted the rise in temperatures, global warming threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2070: We predict continuing rising temperatures, global warming threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2080: In retrospect we predicted the pause in rising temperatures, climate change still threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
2090: OH NO, 2100 is coming, We’re DOOMED! …. No, really. Predictions a century ago left no doubt that by 2100 we’d be toast, no doubt about it, settled.
2100: We predict that there will be a temperature, “CC” threatens life as we know it, due to burning fossil fuels, please send $.
Joe says:May 14, 2013 at 6:34 am
Hi Jo, here’s another!:
How many climate researchers does it take to change a light-bulb?
None. They sit around in the dark watching and waiting until it gets changed, then create a computer model showing that all along they knew exactly how and when that would happen.
A short history of ‘Climate Alchemy’.
In 1972 the NIMBUS team resurrected Aarhenius’ hypothesis, including ‘back radiation’, when no truly professional scientist or engineer can accept this misuse of radiative physics.
In 1973 Lacis and Hansen adapted Sagan’s aerosol optical physics to Climate Alchemy. Sagan had made a mistake, originating in van der Hulst’s work of the 1950s The sign of the aerosol warming from clouds is wrong; it’s the real AGW.
In 1981, Hansen’s first modelling paper claimed that CO2 acted by reducing OLR in the 7-14 µm range. That was a mistake but it seems they had become committed..
In 1997 it was discovered that CO2 followed T rise at the end of ice ages, Mann’s ‘fraudulent’ hockey stick was created.
In 2004 NASA substituted incorrect ‘surface reflection’ physics for Twomey’s partially correct physics, apparently to make AR4 plausible.
In 2009, Trenberth introduced into the ‘energy budget’ imaginary ‘missing heat’ in the oceans.
In 2011, Hansen claimed aerosol cooling, direct + indirect, exactly offsets AGW thus explaining no warming.
It appears that AR5 is to be built around the ‘missing heat’.
Any scientist who accepts this ‘science’ is correct is failing in their first requirement, to be objective and professional. ‘Retrospective prediction’ proves this point beyond reasonable doubt.
Mmmmm, let me also take a retrospective look.
There, fixed. 😉 Just joking.
I didn’t realize we had anything even remotely resembling of accurate temperature data from the briny depths, not to mention a plausible explanation of how heat from the surface might get there.
Besides, what these guys don’t seem to be able to understand is we live on the surface of our planet. Global warming is measured up here. As far as I know we’re still a long way from getting a reliable reading of global warming up here.
What is the mechanism by which this uptake took place? Why did it suddenly begin?
But I thought the models were robust. FAIL. Now, where are the Warmists to call out these Climastrologists on the use of the word “predictions”? I was told by well informed Warmists that climate criminal scientists don’t make predictions but projections. Just how many times do I have to catch out these conmen?
“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.”
Excellent! We are agreed that a decrease in ocean heat uptake causes ‘global warming’. Now we can forget about CO2, and start the important business of figuring out how to tax ocean heat uptake. Right?
Jimbo says: May 14, 2013 at 6:51 am
“Projections” vs “predictions”
Ha! Very good point…
I have a feeling these poor researchers may have all the notable ‘climate scientists’ coming down on them like a tonne of bricks about now!
Why is it that as the gap between the claims and reality grows the “purposefully mendacious” (Anthony) alarmists seem to think their best play is to pile up more and more BS?
Can they not recognize how they are simply piling up more embarrassment?
The entire adventure is being recorded into history and they are not worried at all?
FEMA realized that, just like empirical evidence for AGW, the spontaneous reports from disaster zones may not provide the desired narrative. FEMA then created “Innovation Response Teams” of paid actors, to appear at crisis times and provide the required backstory. Several websites provide video clips of many actual situations. To avoid conspiratorial discussions, no links are furnished. But, FEMA does not deny this program, which begs the question, why do we need paid actors to provide on-scene witness commentary, when REAL witnesses are available ? ? ?
“In time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act” ~ George Orwell
You are mistaken. This was not a science report. It was the premier anouncement for “Back to the Future 2,034,545-The Gorebull Years”.
What the researchers failed to say is this:
One of the possibilities predicted by our models was that warming would not occur. However, we ignored this prediction because it did not meet our expectations. Instead we went with the prediction that warming would occur.
The problem with all models is that the future is not predictable given our current understanding of mathematics and physics. The future is not like the present simply offset in time. The future exists as a probability function with many different outcomes possible given the exact same climate forcings.
Which is exactly what the climate models show. Each time you run the models they give a different result, without any change in the forcings. However, climate science ignores what their own models are telling them, and use the average of all their runs as a prediction. This is a nonsense.
You cannot average the future to arrive at the present. An average of (warming + cooling + unchanged) / 3 = unchanged. However, that answer is wrong as a prediction, because it ignores the possibility that we may get warming or cooling. Using the average ignores what the climate models themselves are telling the modellers.
It is time that climate science woke up and recognized what the models themselves are telling the climate modellers. Both warming and cooling are possible if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The models themselves are predicting this.
If you float a “retrospective prediction” in an engineering setting, you will get laughed out of the room. But at least these folks seem to have a grasp of the task at hand, which is more than I can say for the Hockey Team lately. A topic becomes “settled science” only after multiple sophisticated predictions are conclusively shown to be accurate. While the Team members seem to be distracted by their personal interests and word wars, at least these folks are looking at how to clear the prediction hurdle. The problem is that as a group, climate scientists are rank amateurs at managing hierarchical uncertainty.
Their problem is that surface tension blocks heat transfer.
Surely this is dreadfully simple stuff:
If you create even the most simplistic model and run it with more energy going in than is coming out, your modeled object will get warmer.
In the case where the expected modeled warming is not observed in real life, run the model again with the same energy input, except this time provide a modeled, previously unused heat sink, allocating exactly the now known ‘missing heat’ to that heat sink.
Voilà! You were correct all along!
That’s great, I’ll add that to my list:
STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOLS
“The team concluded that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of stratospheric aerosol, or don’t include recent changes in stratospheric aerosol levels.” http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html
OCEAN CURRENTS
“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
ENSO
“The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.” http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
SOLAR ACTIVITY
“….as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03-0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming.” http://www.environmentportal.in/files/Earth%20surface%20temperature.pdf
SMALL VOLCANOES
“Global warming was slowed between 2000 and 2010 because of sulfur dioxide spewed forth by volcanoes, researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder (CU-Boulder) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claim in a new study.” http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112795104/volcanoes-spewing-sulfur-dioxide-slow-global-warming-030213/
A pure scientist’s motivation by definition is to solve scientific problems, to understand the physical reasons for what has and will happen. An activist on the other hand is driven to push an agenda.
If the scientist is an activist (For example James Hansen, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Kenneth Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, and Stefan Rahmstorf) and if the scientist had a lack of moral fiber (i.e. other climate scientists are pushing the agenda to get grants and to get media attention, why not me also?), they might be tempted to manipulate analysis and hide data to push the agenda.
The lack of warming for the last 16 years indicates that something is fundamentally incorrect with the extreme AGW theory (Hint: Detailed observational analysis in the tropics show there is no water vapor amplification of the CO2 forcing and tropical cloud cover increases or decreases to resist forcing. There is negative feedback in the tropics rather than positive feedback).
The alternate greenhouse gas hypothesis is the lukewarm AGW theory (lukewarm AGW occurs if the planet resists the forcing, negative feedback.)
The following are two additional observations, logic pillars, to support the lukewarm AGW theory.
1) NO TROPICAL TROPOSPHERIC WARMING
A fundamental pillar of the extreme AGW theory is the predicted tropical tropospheric warming at roughly 10 km is. If there is to be substantial warming of the planet (more than 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) due to the increase atmospheric CO2, there needs to be tropical tropospheric warming to amplify CO2 warming. The observations indicate that there is neither warming in the tropics and in addition there is no tropical troposphere warming. These two observations support each other.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. … …We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
2) PLANET RESISTS FORCING CHANGES RATHER THAN AMPLIFIES FORCING CHANGES
Tropical cloud cover increases or decreases, thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space which resists forcing changes, negative feedback.
This is the second paper by Lindzen and Choi on this subject. The warmist scientists had a number of criticisms concerning the first paper’s analysis techniques. Lindzen and Choi address every criticism with more data and multiple analysis techniques to confirm the conclusion is valid. Tropical planetary cloud cover increase or decreases to resist forcing, negative feedback. The warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C is the planet resists rather amplifies the CO2 forcing.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … ….We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
…The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). … …However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.
It appears there is unequivocal evidence that some scientists are activists. Is there evidence that some scientists will manipulate data and analysis to push the extreme AGW agenda?
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author—Dr. Kevin Trenberth—to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
The average depth of the Gulf of Mexico is ~1,615 m (Turner, 1999). It has nice mixing currents. According to many recent posts, the Oceans are absorbing all this excess heat between 0-2000m.
The Gulf, being a nice relatively contained region, should therefore show warming far in excess of the ~0.01C. But it appears to have a cold temperature anomaly of ~1.0C [being kind].
I suppose that the Gulf of Mexico is not part of the Oceans, well, since it has the name Gulf of Mexico. /sarc
The Mediterranean Sea is also nicely contained with less currents and mixing. Its average depth is ~1500m.
It appears that we have to “Oceans” to determine where all of this heat is going!!
Step Up AGW, prove your “Heat into Oceans” theory.
Anything is retrospectively predictable if you have 20/20 hindsight.