Despite recent claims by Justin Gillis in this NYT piece that the plateau in surface temperatures is misunderstood by scientists…
…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
…and that it is just some start point issue…
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
The starting point is almost always 1998…
It can be shown that the plateau may extend further back than that, and that nature still rules the climate system, more so than man. I’m not sure why Gillis thinks 15 years is the number people use starting at 1998, I don’t know of anyone making that claim recently. Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995, a point also brought up in 2008 by Dr. Richard Lindzen at WUWT when he said: “Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?”
More importantly, the kickoff point for this most recent discussion by The Mail’s David Rose started 16 years ago, in 1997. The 15 year/1998 choice seems like a purposeful misdirection by Gillis. Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony
More here in this essay By Dr. David Whitehouse via The GWPF
The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science. It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability.
In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced – about 1980 – global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting.
As Steve Goddard has interestingly pointed out recently using RSS data going back to 1990 the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a very important effect on global temperatures.
The Pinatubo eruption threw more sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere since the Krakatoa outburst in 1883. Its millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide reduced incident sunlight and had a maximum of 0.4 deg C cooling effect on global temperatures and an influence that lasted for several years.
The result of this temperature decrease is to increase the difference between the global temperatures of the 1990s and the 2000s. Removing this volcanic dip reduces quite significantly the temperature increase seen over the 1990 – 2013 period. When the errors are taken into account it is not impressive.
There was another very important volcanic eruption in the 1980s – El Chichon in 1982 – whose aerosols actually reduced solar irradiance by an even greater extent than Pinatubo.
Removing this volcanic signal also reduces the statistical significance of the rise in temperature seen since 1980. (In fact, statistically speaking, one is hard-pressed to find any statistically significant warming between 1980 – 1995.)
The El Chichon eruption is interesting because one of the strongest El Nino events, some say the strongest ever, occurred just after it. These two events had an interesting interplay for it seems that the global temperature rise induced by the warm water of the El Nino was offset by the cooling effect of the stratospheric aerosols from El Chichon. It is interesting to speculate what might had happened if El Chichon had not gone off. Would the 1982 El Nino have been as dramatic as the 1998 one? And would it have left in its wake elevated global temperatures, as 1998 seems to have done? What would have been the impact on environmental thinking, and on James Hansen’s global warming warning in 1988?
In the post-1980 global temperature data the effects of the El Ninos and La Ninas are obvious both as discrete events and as a source of ‘noise’ in the temperature of the past 16 years. The statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1980 occurred in the years after the Pinatubo eruption’s dip had ended, and before the onset of the strong 1998 El Nino. If strong El Ninos are a mechanism for changing global temperatures in a stepwise fashion we may have to wait for another strong one before the current temperature standstill ends. Perhaps we should also be looking at the link between the lifting of the post-volcanic aerosol burden and its possible effect on the initiation of El Ninos.
The Unthinkable
One of the interesting aspects of the current temperature standstill is that it persists despite several El Ninos and La Ninas.Since 2006 the influence of these events has been more pronounced in satellite data; El Ninos in 2007 and 2009-10, La Ninas in 2008, 2010–2012. These events have increased the ‘noise’ of the global temperature data in recent years.
(Courtesy Dr Roy Spencer – www.drroyspencer.com)
Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing. As usual, five more years of data will be fascinating to analyse.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
here
Is it too much to ask that folks who write such things as “it’s cold here” do us the favor of identifying where “here” is?
A general idea is all that is necessary to distinguish between Oymyakon, London, or Tucson. Thanks.
” I wonder if that means Hansen’s software demonstrated that fossil fuels are so evil they will either boil us or freeze us. There again it might mean his modelling is just crap.”
It is very easy to write software that tells you what you want. It’s very, very hard to write software that tells you something you didn’t already know.
One critical statement in the article is
“To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.”
If a climate system is dominated by natural variability, it is not dominated by man made CO2 production. The natural climate change will be the dominate reason for changes in the climate. Anti-carbon exercises by man will not have a significant impact on the climate.
Climate models where temperature is driven by CO2 emissions are wrong if natural variability dominates the climate system. Government policies based on existing climate models are ill-advised as the models are wrong. The New York Times says so.
@William Howard Astley
The JASON Defense Advisory Panel wrote about what would happen under CO2 induced global warming, including arctic amplification here: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf
•The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate, JSR-78-07, April 1979
“They found that a doubling of carbon dioxide content raises the average temperature 2.9′ and the calculations indicate a warming of 8′ to 20′ in the high latitudes with smaller than average increases in the equatorial regions.” (pp. 23-24)
———
so, yeah, things are moving along pretty much exactly like they were understood back in 1974 when these calculations were made by Manabe and Weatherald in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
———–
It is hard to believe in your theory of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (re: solar magnetic cycles) when you think that arctic amplification is supposed to be caused by variances in CO2 concentrations. This is just plain wrong.
the predominant theory behind Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles is that they are caused by interruptions and restarts of the AMOC.
———-
Finally,
If you remove the cooling from El Chichon and Pinatubo and then reduce the warming from the El Ninos and reduce the cooling from the La ninas you get a graph that shows a very real and increasing rate of temperature increase, even using the RSS data which misses 7.5 degrees of latitude in the furtherst northern region where the amplification has been occurring.
here is the increase without the corrections showing surface, UAH and RSS temperatures: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html
Here is the increase with the corrections: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/ see figure 5 it shows a clear global warming signal of 6.5 degrees since 1945.
Of course he has objections so he says,
1) F&R assume that temperature change from for exaple El Nino or period of raised Solar activity etc. will dissapear fully immidiately after such an event ends. F&R assumes that heat does not accumulate from one temperature event to the next.
2) Missing corrections for PDO
3) Missing corrections for human aerosols – (supposed to be important)
4) Missing corrections for AMO
5) F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979
None of which detracts from the point which is,
If you remove the signals from volcanoes (which there were some effects after 1991) and then correct for ENSO values (ocean heat moving out of the ocean or into the ocean due to less or more mixing during wind events) and then correct for the 11 year solar cycle you get 6.5 degrees of consistent warming since 1945.
and that is why this site uses RSS data almost exclusively along with only showing temperature values since 1997 to include the largest el nino in recorded history.
Bill Illis says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:28 am
I find your graphs very illuminating. The 0.052C/decade you find in the UAH/RSS data is, I believe, around one tenth of the value that the UKMO includes in all supercomputer climate models (varies with scenario). No wonder they are guaranteed to be wrong!
Didn’t NOAA predict a very warm Spring and continuation of drought in the U.S.?
I lay reasonable odds that this is a reasonable predictor of future climate over the next few years. UAH global data only (ref: Dr Roy Spencer – http://www.drroyspencer.com)
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/media/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png.html
jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
Here is the increase with the corrections:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/ see figure 5 it shows a clear global warming signal of 6.5 degrees since 1945.
It is only 0.65 C in 60 years which is about 1.08 C in 100 years.
What is the significance of the warming when we remove obvious step corrections up for the warming period and step changes down for the previous cold period. It is always very instructive to take the CAGW proponents’ own data and show its hypotheses and projections wrong. But it is getting time to correct the corrections and really dump this odious load.
I have a theory that, when all else is said and done, most people, without even knowing it, will fairly quickly drop clues as to what they’re really all about (yours truly included). I think the following statement by Justin Gillis is such an example, and not in the way he thinks:
‘…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.’
What is “riding on the scientific forecast” is the reputation and trust in the IPCC (and thus in the UN itself), in the governments and their taxing bodies that forwarded policies that damaged their constituents, in the members of the scientific community that sucked on the same teat of those taxpayer funds, and finally, in the slavishly ennobling media that rode, and continues to ride, on this same train wreck. Continuing that train ride is what the stakes are. That’s what Justin Gillis is truly concerned about.
From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 9:33 am:
And this is how we know “jai” is some sort of troll, sourcing his smears from elsewhere, as he clearly has NO idea what temperature data is used on WUWT.
Really, RSS is pretty rare. For satellites UAH is used, since we like Christy and Spencer and they keep it honest. Otherwise Hadley-something is often used for earlier periods as that’s not as obviously biased as GISS. Unless it’s US-only, then NCDC, GISS. Sometimes BEST is used, although largely just for laughs, least to my view.
Shall we observe standard anti-troll protocols and just completely ignore him, at least until he gets assigned a new handle and sent back into the fray against the evil Gaia-slaying oil-funded Climate Deniers?
Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my estimation has not received the attention it deserves. It should bottom out somewhere around the year 2029. The 61 year climate cycle should bottom out somewhere around 2024. Also the Sun appears to be finally settling down and possibly preparing for the minimum (~2020). If there is a major cooling in the cards, it should happen incrementally over the next 16 years.
One thing is clear; trying to pin down the Climatists on the issue of the at least 16- year lack of further warming despite the continued increase of C02 to the “dangerous” level of 400ppm is like trying to catch eels with your bare hands. When they aren’t claiming the heat must be hiding somewhere, they claim it’s a cherry-pick, getting the start date (today) completely the wrong way around. The grasping at straws (and straw men) is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
To Rud Istvan:
Actually, it was NOAA that set the 15-year goalpost in 2008, not NASA.
Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 did not include the AMO. Here is what the methodology looks like without the AMO. A clear 60 year cycle.
http://s13.postimg.org/u9ciffzqf/Hadcrut4_without_AMO.png
Also Foster and Rahmstorf actually inverted the solar irradiance data. I mean really, temperatures go down at the top of the solar cycle and go up at the bottom. What really happened is they deliberately used the old PMOD composite solar irradiance data which is known to be suffering from degradation in the sensors in one of the satellites it uses. It has a spurious decline in recent periods and F&R 2011 had to invert the data because their regression coefficient was Negative (while it has to be positive). They did all this so they could take advantage of the spurious recent data and assign that little extra margin to CO2 warming instead. The fact that this step got through peer review is ridiculous.
Its been clear for a long time that the ‘essential ‘ time line is has long as it needs to be to support ‘the cause ‘ so one year is more then enough to prove it and 15 years not enough to disprove it .
And they there is the very unscientific fall back of ‘its going to happen ‘ a claim that although meaningless is also very hard to disprove . A factor that plays a large part in the change from alarmist making forecasts for the next year years to ones a century ahead when none of them will be around to be called out on their BS.
Ric Werme says:
June 12, 2013 at 4:56 am
Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony
Furthermore, if we use 1979 as the start of the recent warming, then we have warming between 1979 and 1997 (18 years) and plateau/hiatus/insignificance between 1997 and 2013 (16 years). If we use 1996 as the inflection point, then both periods meet the Santer criterium. So if anyone claims that is too short to be significant, then I suggest the warming period is also too short to be significant.
It’s even worse when you consider that previous to the late 70s inflection point, there was more than 30 years of flat to declining temps from about 1940, the negativity of which depends on whose funky numbers you want to embrace and whether you use current versions or the versions from before the data manipulators efforts to give the Dust Bowl days the Mann MWP treatment. Basically, in almost three quarters of a century virtually all of the observed trend was generated in 20 years, or probably less, of the record
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:40 am
As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
You have never specified what ‘interrupted’ means. By any sensible definition, your statement is simply wrong. To my knowledge there has been no ‘interruption’ of anything, so please educate me.
@kadaka
there is essentially no deviation between the RSS and UAH data. both are significantly flawed and underestimate warming.
Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.
TLMango says:
June 12, 2013 at 10:37 am
Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my estimation has not received the attention it deserves.
Scafetta claims that his theory predicted the ‘plateau’, but an even better fit [rather than his cycles] is simply a straight line with no variation and Occam’s razor stipulates “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” so there is no need for Scafetta’s ‘prediction’.
The “plateau” really extends back to the 1930s, which were the hottest years of the Modern Warming Period. Despite minor ups and downs, the trend overall for 75 years, not 16 or 17, is downward, not even flat. 75 years doesn’t look a whole lot like cherry picking, plus there is the evidence cited by Russian scientists (not getting rich on fat “research” grants) that solar behavior is indicative of a long-lasting cooling trend coming.
jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am
“Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.”
Could you give me a hint? From my view the Arctic is almost always doing something incredible, but I just did a quick scan of the Sea Ice Page and almost all the sources there seem to be pretty average incredible at the moment.
jai mitchell-
Thank you for visiting WUWT and authoritatively stating the true global temperature trend of 6.5 degrees Celcius since 1945. This is a valuable contribution to the discussion, because it is so hysterically wrong.
First, starting from 1945 is wrong. The IPCC AR4 models declare that anthropogenic effects are not significant until around 1970.
Next, the global warming should be based on satellite data. Since it does not extend back far enough, the next best dataset is the ocean surface, which comprises more than 70% of the Earth’s surface. The worst dataset is land surface temperatures, which are hopelessly contaminated with ocophobic adjustments, and represent less than one-third of the globe.
Next, polar temperatures can be ignored because the measurement data is almost nonexistent, and the polar regions represent less than 2% of the globe.
This leaves you with about 0.5C warming since 1970, or about 0.1 C/decade.
Next, the temperature trend from 1910 to 1940, when anthro CO2 had no IPCC-modeled effect on temperatures, was also 0.1 C/decade.
Next, Hansen and others have admitted this year that natural climate forcings such as sunspot activity may be responsible for the recent temperature plateau, completely reversing their view 10 years ago that anthro effects had completely overwhelmed natural forcings.
So, some of that 0.1 C/decade is natural.
Some is solar sunspot activity.
Some is soot.
Some is land use changes.
Some is cosmic ray impacts on clouds.
Some is natural cloud density variations.
Some is natural cloud height variations.
Some is natural specific humidity variations.
Some is measurement error.
Some is natural precipitation variations.
Some is natural El Nino/ La Nina step changes in surface temperatures.
etc
etc
etc.
From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am:
Since both are measuring the same thing as well as scientifically possible, and can be using the same raw satellite data with the only great difference being the processing, of course they should be very similar.
But they are verified against radiosonde balloon measurements, etc, proving they are not “significantly flawed” and measure what they measure accurately.
That they refuse to show the warming of the knowingly-corrupted surface records indicts the surface records, not the satellite records.
And if that’s all the reply you have now that you’re been found out, you should ask yourself, is this job worth it? I noticed you popped up in the “summer job” season, you can’t be making much above minimum.
Really, please consider honest work, like pizza delivery. The tips are great, you can triple your on-the-books income. Granted, for a Gaia-lover as committed as you’ve portrayed yourself to be, you’d need three fully-charged Nissan Leafs to get through a full shift, but hey, it’d be more honest than what you’re doing now!
Climate change is over. It is not a plateau. We now have climate stability.
Now if we start getting global cooling, will the eco loons start calling for an increase in the use of carbon fuels to forestall the global catastrophe of another ice-age? Or will they then abandon and twist their own logic and continue their attack on energy and industrial progress?