Statistical proof of 'the pause' – Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5

models (see Supplementary Information).

These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated

with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as

well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas

concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon,

for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land

use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated

temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find

an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C

per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The

observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and

only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational

uncertainty (Fig. 1a).

Ffe_figure1

Figure 1 | Trends in global mean surface temperature. a, 1993–2012. b, 1998–2012. Histograms of observed trends (red hatching) are from 100 reconstructions of the HadCRUT4 dataset1. Histograms of model trends (grey bars) are based on 117 simulations of the models, and black curves are smoothed versions of the model trends. The ranges of observed trends reflect observational uncertainty, whereas the ranges of model trends reflect forcing uncertainty, as well as differences in individual model responses to external forcings and uncertainty arising from internal climate variability.

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more

striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).

For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four

times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b).

It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly

different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. The

divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the

early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends

from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively).

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models

(when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce

the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global

warming over the past fifteen years.

This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the

observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are

exchangeable with each other (that is, the ‘truth plus error’ view); or (2) the models

are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (see Supplementary

Information).

Brief: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf

Paper at NCC: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

Supplementary Information (241 KB) CMIP5 Models
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
justsomeguy31167

Make this sticky? This is huge because of the journal and the authors. Maybe real scientists are seeing so much evidence against AGW that some will tell the truth.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Does anyone know of any PRO-AGW websites that are commenting on the shift toward natural variability and the lack of warming? Or are they all turning a blind eye to it?

braddles

While the CMIP5 models may well have warming rates clustered around 0.3 degrees per decade, we shouldn’t forget that these are NOT the models that are being used to influence policy. The ones being use are much more extreme and should have been utterly discredited by now.
An example here in Australia is a CSIRO model that predicts ‘up to’ 5 degrees by 2070, almost one degree per decade. This was the figure quoted by (former) Prime Minister Gillard and used to justify the carbon tax introduced in 2012.
You can bet that President Obama does not read Nature Climate Change.
In short, the journals are comparing the milder models to the real world (and even then they are failing) while protecting from scrutiny the extreme models that are being presented to policy-makers.

Gösta Oscarsson

There are a few “model trends” which correctly describes “observed trends”. Wouldn´t it be intresting to analyse in what way they differ from the rest?

RMB

Try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. At 450degsC the surface should quickly boil, in fact it remains cool. You can not heat water through the surface and thats why they are all having a problem.

AndyG55

And that is compared to the highly manipulated trend created in HadCrud.
I wonder how the models perform against actual reality !

el gordo

‘Or are they all turning a blind eye to it?’
Deltoid is in a death spiral, the blogmasta (Tim Lambert) departed the scene months ago and slowly the place is being taken over by contrarians. Its also under a severe DoS attack.
The old warmist faithful are simply denying the new reality. They don’t even accept the hiatus, even after I pointed out that 97% of scientists agree that its real.

SideShowBob

RMB says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:31 am
“Try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. At 450degsC the surface should quickly boil, in fact it remains cool. You can not heat water through the surface… ”
Honestly that is such a moronic comment I think you were sent here to intentionally bring this website into disrepute !

Friends:
The paper is reported to say

It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.

NO! That is an unjustifiable assumption tantamount to a lie.
Peer reviewed should have required that it be corrected to say something like:
It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — indicates a cessation of global warming. It remains to be seen when and if warming will resume or will be replaced by cooling.
Richard

This ‘histogram’ is based on the actual temperatures
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETd.htm

Rich

“This difference might be explained by … internal climate variability.” Surely if you’re modelling the climate you can’t say, “My model’s wrong because of internal climate variability” because that’s exactly what you’re supposed to be modelling. They keep saying this and I don’t get it.

Dr Darko Butina

It is amazing that all the ‘proofs’ of global warming trends are ‘validated’ by another model or miss-use of statistics and NOT by thermometer. The Vukcevic’s histogram is also based on the annual average and therefore not on ‘actual’ temperatures. The global temperature does not exist, it cannot be measured, not a single property of our atmosphere is global – all the properties are local and climate community should not ignore Essex et al (2007), Kramm-Dlugi (2001) and Butina (2012). Dr Darko Butina

Greg

“It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. ”
What “suggests” that it is temporary?
Ah well we’re getting there slowly. No point in expecting a total and sudden 180. At least it does now seem to be polite to talk about it.

Rich:
Your entire post at September 5, 2013 at 1:18 am says

“This difference might be explained by … internal climate variability.” Surely if you’re modelling the climate you can’t say, “My model’s wrong because of internal climate variability” because that’s exactly what you’re supposed to be modelling. They keep saying this and I don’t get it.

I will try to explain what they are saying, but please do NOT assume my attempt at explanation means I agree with the explanation because I don’t.
The models assume climate varies because of internal variability. This is “noise” around a stable condition.
The models calculate that climate varies in determined manner in response to “forcings”.
Thus, a change to a forcing causes the climate to adjust so a trend in climate parameter (e.g. global temperature) occurs during the adjustment.
If these assumptions are true then
(a) at some times internal variability will add to a forced trend
and
(b) at other times internal variability will subtract from a forced trend.
Until now the modellers have assumed effects of internal variability sum to insignificance over periods of ~15 years. But the ‘pause’ has lasted longer than that. So, internal variability must be significant to climate trends over periods of more than 15 years if the ‘pause’ is an effect of internal variability negating enhanced forcing form increased greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Unfortunately, this is a ‘double edged sword’.
If internal variability has completely negated GHG forced warming for the recent about two decades, then
internal variability probably doubled the warming assumed to have been GHG forced over the previous two decades.
And that ignores the fact that warming from the LIA has been happening for centuries so natural variability clearly does occur for much longer periods than decades (as is also indicated by ice cores). When that is acknowledged then ALL the recent global warming can be attributed to internal variability so there is no residual warming which can be attributed to GHG forced warming.
I hope this explanation is clear and helpful.
Richard

Crispin in Waterloo

“It remains to be seen when and if warming will resume or will be replaced by cooling. ”
Right on Richard. That is exactly how it should be phrased. There are multiple indications that it will be cooling. You are also correct that a style editor should have picked that up even if the reviewers did not. Adopting the term ‘hiatus’ was to allow wiggle room for doom-laden forecasters to maintain the story that the heating will come back with more vigour after the ‘pause’.
‘Pause’ implies that the tape will roll when ‘Play’ is pressed again.
By someone.
Or something.
Or not.

Ken Hall

Rich (1:18am). You are correct. They should honestly say, my model is wrong. I do not particularly care why it is wrong, as that is for the coders and theoreticians to figure out to try to create a better model. All I care about is the policies which are being implemented, which are hurting millions of families and starving them of energy and money because those models are wrong. I want the politicians to recognise that the models are wrong and to change policy and to throw the warmists out of work and to stop basing dangerously expensive policies on unproven theories backed by fearmongering.

Gail Combs

richardscourtney says: @ September 5, 2013 at 1:03 am
Richard, if they had modified their statement to say “It remains to be seen when and if warming will resume or will be replaced by cooling.” The paper would never have made it out of Pal- Review Errr Peer-Review. Heck they could have had something similar in the original submission and it got scrubbed.
What I find most intriguing is the admission:

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models
(when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce
the observed global warming over the past 20 years,
or the slowdown in global
warming over the past fifteen years.

So it is not just the last fifteen years it is the last twenty year that the models “do not reproduce”
EPIC FAIL! Now can we all go home and forget this nightmare?

Sleepalot

“Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. ”
Bullshit.

Cheshirered

richardscourtney says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:03 am
Very good point. Another subtle way of presenting The Cause in a favourable light. ie this is only temporary and warming WILL start again soon, hence we cannot let up ‘tackling climate change’.
Translation: keep the funding flowing.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

RMB spouted off on September 5, 2013 at 12:31 am:

Try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. At 450degsC the surface should quickly boil, in fact it remains cool. You can not heat water through the surface and thats why they are all having a problem.

This is standard “Sky Dragon Slayer” stuff you’re spewing, but, what the heck, tried it for myself.
Proposed: A heat gun applied to the surface of water cannot heat the water.
Experiment setup:
1 bowl of unknown plastic, semi-flexible, no recycling symbol indicating plastic type, 2 1/3 cups (US measure) capacity. Approximate dimensions: 5 1/2″ inside diameter top with 1/2″ wide rim, 2″ effective depth, circular arc curve (concave interior surface) to 2 7/8″ diameter flat bottom, with integral hollow cylindrical section base of 1/4″ height and 2 7/8″ diameter. Base design minimizes heat transfer with surface underneath. Usually used for cold to warm contents (ice cream to oatmeal) but not boiling hot items.
1 Master Forge Wireless Thermometer #0023557, originally purchased at Lowes, consists of display-less transmitting base with probe and receiving hand unit which displays temperature, set for °F. Normally used for grilling/roasting. Has timer count-up and count-down functions displaying minutes and seconds. Used for temperature readings and timing.
2 cups (US measure) room temperature tap water, from well.
1 Conair 1600W hair dryer, 125VAC, Model 064, used as heat gun.
Procedure:
Water in bowl, thermometer probe in water. Initial reading 74°F (no decimal), room temperature. Bowl resting on white porcelain-coated metal surface (stove top) at 74°F per probe, room temperature.
Heat gun on high, held by hand, outlet aimed at water surface of bowl, approximately 8 inches away at 45° from horizontal, aimed at center of surface. Water surface was notably agitated by the air flow, small quantity of water lost over edge of bowl.
Results in CSV format:
Time,Temperature
min:sec,°F
0:00,74
0:30,74
1:00,75
1:30,76
2:00,76
2:30,77
3:00,77
3:30,78
4:00,78
4:30,78
5:00,79
Discussion: Output of heat gun was applied to surface of water. Temperature of water increased.
Conclusion: A heat gun applied to the surface of water can heat the water. The proposition is falsified.
I tried it, showed to myself you were wrong. How should I have done the experiment so it will yield the result you are certain must happen?

Gail Combs

Rich says: @ September 5, 2013 at 1:18 am
…. Surely if you’re modelling the climate you can’t say, “My model’s wrong because of internal climate variability” because that’s exactly what you’re supposed to be modelling. They keep saying this and I don’t get it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What they are eluding to but dare not say is “climate variability” = Chaos
FROM the WUWT article:

First of all, what is Chaos? I use the term here in its mathematical sense….
Systems of forces, equations, photons, or financial trading, can exist effectively in two states: one that is amenable to mathematics, where the future states of the systems can be easily predicted, and another where seemingly random behaviour occurs.
This second state is what we will call chaos. It can happen occasionally in many systems….
There are, however, systems where chaos is not rare, but is the norm. One of these, you will have guessed, is the weather….
So, what does it mean to say that a system can behave seemingly randomly? Surely if a system starts to behave randomly the laws of cause and effect are broken?
Chaotic systems are not entirely unpredictable, as something truly random would be. They exhibit diminishing predictability as they move forward in time, and this diminishment is caused by greater and greater computational requirements to calculate the next set of predictions. Computing requirements to make predictions of chaotic systems grow exponentially, and so in practice, with finite resources, prediction accuracy will drop off rapidly the further you try to predict into the future. Chaos doesn’t murder cause and effect; it just wounds it!….

In other words this study shows that climate is a Chaotic System (DUH!) and therefore ” prediction accuracy will drop off rapidly the further you try to predict into the future.” However when the whole scam (and your gant money) is dependent on computer models ‘predicting’ catastrophic warming (Oh, My we must act NOW!) the last thing you are going to announce is that you have figured out the system is chaotic and therefore all that money for all those computers and models has been wasted.
Why the heck do you think there has been such a big fight over whether or not the IPCC makes ‘Predictions’ or ‘Projections’

Laurie

John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
I tried to find CVs of these authors and found nothing. Also, I’m ignorant of “Nature Climate Change”. Can someone provide information please?

Gail Combs:
re your post addressed to me at September 5, 2013 at 2:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1408393
I agree both your points except that your second point is even stronger than you express.
Actually the true but unstated finding is that the models do not work for any length of time.
This is implicit because of the LIA issue I mention in my explanation for Rich at September 5, 2013 at 1:55 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1408386
And it is why I said to him

I will try to explain what they are saying, but please do NOT assume my attempt at explanation means I agree with the explanation because I don’t.

Richard

richard verney

“Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval”
//////////////////////////
The fact is that during this 20 year period, the rise in temperature has not been linear (even if one applies some light smoothing to account for year to year variability).
All, or almost all, of the rise in temperature these past 20 years has been associated with a one off isolated event, namely the Super El Nino of 1998. Given the uncertainty 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade, we cannot be certain that all the rise in temperature is due to this ENSO event, but certainly the vast majority is. When this is taken into account, it is clear that the models are further off target than even this paper suggests.
As regards the hiatus, of course it is temporary only. Sooner or later, it is inevitable that temperatures will begin to change. But as Richard observes, we do not know in which direction that change will take place.
One further point on the pause, if the CO2 warming theory is sound, it becomes ever more difficult for there to be a pause in circumstances of elevated CO2 levels. It would easier for there to be a say 15 year pause (ie., when natural variability counteracts the warming effect of CO2) when CO2 levels are in the range of say 310 to 335ppm. It is more difficult when CO2 levels are in the range of 380 to 400ppm. It will be even more difficult should CO2 levels reach say 420ppm.
The higher the level of CO2 the greater the CO2 forcing. We are told (and, of course, this is a new development not mentioned in previous IPCC reports) that model runs do sometimes project lengthy pauses in the rise of temperature. However, we are not told at what level of CO2 this pause in the model projection occurs. Has any model shown a 17 or so year pause with CO2 levels in the range of 380 to 400ppm (and rising)?
I find it difficult to conceive how any model could project a lengthy pause when built on the assumption that CO2 is the dominant temperature driver and has dominion over natural variability. Of course they could contain a random number generator to input from time to time negative forcings from natural variability and another random number generator to input negative forcings from volcanoes and it is possible that these randomly generated negative forcings coincide to produce a pause, but this would only be short lived since the negative forcings claimed for volcanoes is only short lived. Ditto if they included a random generator to additionally throw La Nina into the mix.
Finally, this type of study is precisely the type of study which the IPCC itself should right from the early days have conducted when auditing the efficacy of its models and their projections. A reprot such as this should be included in AR5 irrespective of this type of paper.

Berényi Péter

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:08 am
Does anyone know of any PRO-AGW websites that are commenting on the shift toward natural variability and the lack of warming? Or are they all turning a blind eye to it?

Note replies to comment #2, #6 & #11 by Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt under Unforced variations: Sept. 2013 at the RealClimate blog (Climate science from climate scientists).
1. Promises a future post on Fyfe & al. 2013 (as soon as it comes out will have to be addressed here)
2. Says that conflating model-observation mismatch to a contradiction “is a huge (and unjustified) leap” (whatever that’s supposed to mean)
3. Repeats old mantra “all theories are ‘wrong’ (as they are imperfect models of reality)” (therefore proving them wrong is not an issue, right?)
4. “Judging which one (or more) are falsified by a mismatch is non-trivial.”
5. Has “no problem agreeing that mismatches should be addressed”
6. Is a strong proponent of incorrect, but “useful” theories.
There you go.

Laurie

Nevermind 😉 I found what I was looking for concerning the authors. Is “Nature Climate Change” associated with the “Nature” journal?

Gail Combs

Sleepalot says: @ September 5, 2013 at 2:15 am
“Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. ”
Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My thoughts exactly.

Australian temperature records shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable. Surprise!
….The audit shows 20-30% of all the measurements back then [before 1972] were rounded or possibly truncated. Even modern electronic equipment was at times, so faulty and unmonitored that one station rounded all the readings for nearly 10 years! These sloppy errors may have created an artificial warming trend. The BOM are issuing pronouncements of trends to two decimal places like this one in the BOM’s Annual Climate Summary 2011 of “0.52 °C above average” yet relying on patchy data that did not meet its own compliance standards around half the time. It’s doubtful they can justify one decimal place, let alone two….
It was the sharp eye of Chris Gillham who noticed the first long string of continuous whole numbers in a site record…. The audit team were astonished at how common the problem was. Ian Hill and Ed Thurstan developed software to search the mountain of data and discovered that while temperatures of .0 degrees ought to have been 10% of all the measurements, some 20 – 30% of the entire BOM database was recorded as whole number, or “.0″.…..

Anthony and his team of volunteers found problems with the US system. Since these two systems would be considered ‘Top of the Line’ the rest of the surface station data can only be a lot worse. A.J. Strata goes into an analysis of error in the temperature data based on information gleaned from the Climategate e-mails HERE.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Laurie said on September 5, 2013 at 2:34 am:

John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
I tried to find CVs of these authors and found nothing. Also, I’m ignorant of “Nature Climate Change”. Can someone provide information please?

Sometime after Climategate, the previously well-respected journal Nature, while still somewhat respected, decided to divest itself of “climate science” and created the special Nature Climate Change journal, with the expected press release that this was done to highlight the global importance of the issue, give it the attention it is due, yada yada.
To search for published scholarly works, and from them discover the resumes of their writers, use Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/
The first name shows up as “JC Fyfe”. Looks like there’s two of them, one does biomedical. The other does climate science, here’s an example that was done for the American Meteorological Society (AMS):

Extratropical Southern Hemisphere Cyclones: Harbingers of Climate Change?
John C. Fyfe

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Meteorological Service of Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Try Google Scholar for that and the other names.

johnmarshall

Or perhaps it is because the models have CO2 as an agent of warming when it cannot do this.

gnomish

kadaka
repeat the experiment with an infrared heater.
you may be able to heat the water slightly but you will find that the top layer absorbs most of the radiation and produces vapor in response – then the vapor absorbs the radiation and carries it off.
some numbers on that would make an interesting comparison

Nick Boyce

At the risk of repeating myself, in view of the admitted uncertainties in the global surface air temperature record, it is not at all clear how much, if any, global warming has taken place at the surface of the earth since about 1880.
http://lidskialf.blogspot.co.uk/p/global-warming-is-hoax-2.html

Nick Boyce:
Your post at September 5, 2013 at 3:05 am says in total

At the risk of repeating myself, in view of the admitted uncertainties in the global surface air temperature record, it is not at all clear how much, if any, global warming has taken place at the surface of the earth since about 1880.
http://lidskialf.blogspot.co.uk/p/global-warming-is-hoax-2.html

Yes, I know. Indeed, I have been hammering the point in many places for many years; see e.g.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
So, I care about the inability to determine global temperature at least as much as you do.
However, that is NOT relevant to the discussion in this thread.
The climate models attempt to emulate climate change as indicated by global temperature (whatever that metric means). But the paper being discussed reports that the models fail in that attempt.
This failure is important because all IPCC predictions and projections are based on outputs of the climate models. Therefore, if the models do not emulate climate change – and the paper reports that they don’t – then everything the IPCC says is wrong so needs to be ignored.

Discussion of the failings of global temperature determination would disrupt the thread from its important subject. It should be avoided however much you, I or anyone else cares about the travesty which is determination of global temperature.
Richard

Gail Combs

richardscourtney says: @ September 5, 2013 at 2:34 am
…I agree both your points except that your second point is even stronger than you express.
Actually the true but unstated finding is that the models do not work for any length of time.
This is implicit because of the LIA issue I mention….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the light of the geologic past the whole edifice crumbles. This study talks of “Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade”
That is a STABLE Climate and we should thank God for it.
From NOAA:

…Two different types of climate changes, called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, occurred repeatedly throughout most of this time. Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades, and was followed by a gradual cooling….
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html

(Note this not talking centuries but decades.)
How much of a ‘Warming?

Were Dansgaard-Oeschger events forced by the Sun?
Abstract
Large-amplitude (10–15 Kelvin), millennial-duration warm events, the Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events, repeatedly occurred during ice ages. Several hypotheses were proposed to explain the recurrence pattern of these events….

Not only were this drastic changes in temperature but they still do not know what caused them.
These abrupt warmings also occur during Interglacials.
Again from NOAA.

A Pervasive 1470-Year Climate Cycle in North Atlantic Glacials and Interglacials: A Product of Internal or External Forcing?
Gerard C. Bond (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory…
New evidence from deep sea piston cores in the eastern and western subpolar North Atlantic suggests that regional climate underwent rapid sub-Milankovitch variability, not only during the last glaciation, as has been previously documented on a global scale, but also during the present interglacial (Holocene) and the previous interglacial (stage 5e). The evidence consists of recurring shifts in lithic grain concentrations, lithic grain petrology and percentages of foraminiferal species. Amplitudes of this cycle during interglacials are much smaller than during glacials, typically by a factor of 2 to 3 in temperature and by more than one order of magnitude in amounts of ice rafted debris…
Three features are especially noteworthy in our records. First, we find a persistent quasi-periodic cycle with a mean pacing of 1470 years in both glacials and interglacials, demonstrating that climate on that time scale oscillated independently of ice volumes….
The origin of the 1470-year cycle is far from clear. Its persistence across glacial- interglacial boundaries is evidence that it cannot have been produced by any internal process involving ice-sheet instabilities. On the other hand, the cycle pacing is close to the overturning time of the ocean, raising the possibility that it arises from an internal oscillation within the ocean’s circulation. External processes, such as solar forcing and harmonics of the orbital periodicities cannot be ruled out, but are, at least presently, difficult to test.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/chapconf/bond_abs.html

Even at a factor of 2 to 3 smaller (of the 10–15 Kelvin amplitude) that still gives a 1 to 3 Kelvin change “in a matter of decades” a far cry from the ‘Catastrophic’ 0.14 ± 0.06 per decade the Warmists are bleating on about.

steveta_uk

kadaka, you need to repeat this with an incandescant light heat source, and a dark base to the bowl, to verify that light cannot possibly heat water, as per another of the S*y Dr*gon rants.

Gail Combs

gnomish says: @ September 5, 2013 at 2:59 am
… repeat the experiment with an infrared heater.
you may be able to heat the water slightly but you will find that the top layer absorbs most of the radiation and produces vapor in response – then the vapor absorbs the radiation and carries it off.
some numbers on that would make an interesting comparison.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed.
A heat gun will ‘froth’ the water causing disruption of the surface boundary layer. (That type of disturbance is one of the arguments used by warmists to say the oceans absorb heat from CO2.)

Gail Combs:
re your post at September 5, 2013 at 3:45 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1408442
I fear we may be straying too far from the important subject of this thread. However, without meaning to start a side-track in the thread, I write to stress the importance of your point for the benefit of others.
The D-O Events indicate that the Earth has two stable conditions (i.e. glacial and interglacial). Transition between them consists of rapid ‘flickers’ between the two states until the climate stabilises in one of them.
This is consistent with the climate system being chaotic and having (at least) two strange attractors.
If that indication is correct then the fundamental assumption used in the climate models is wrong. The models assume climate change is driven by forcings.

However, the climate system has varying thermal input and varying temperature during each year so it is never in equilibrium. And, therefore, it oscillates (e.g. global temperature rises and falls by 3.8°C during each year).
If the chaotic climate system is constantly seeking its nearest strange attractor while constantly experiencing a changing equilibrium then ‘forcing’ is not relevant to climate change.
Richard

Gail Combs says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:07 am
So it is not just the last fifteen years it is the last twenty year that the models “do not reproduce”

An interesting and accurate description. I would like to see the push back from the warmists if the reality of your statement is shown to them.

KevinM

117 simulations
114 high
3 on target
+ 0 low.
—————————
Groupthink

This is what happens when you try to model 1/f noise believing it to be a signal.
As the IPCC kindly showed in their graph showing the frequency distribution of the temperature it is 1/f noise. Like “normal” noise this is completely random, but unlike normal noise although the value at any time is random, in 1/f noise there is a high correlation between successive time points.
So e.g. if it becomes “hot” … it stays hot (for a while). If it is cold … it stays cold and if there is a trend … it tends to stick around.
In other words to the naive academic who wants to mine data for their next paper … it is full of quirks that can be said to be “something” which are all just random noise.
The only reason they got away with it so long is that it takes so long for the climate to change … and before their bogus claims of finding “something” got tossed in the trash.

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)

So, when this is all over, who’s going to take Gore to court for all the damages he has caused? I’d say that 200 million could pay off some coal miners and pay refunds for elevated electric bills people have been paying. I want to see people like Gore punished for all the lies they has been spewing. Take that Peace Prize away from him. It’s about time to take this country back.

Rich says: Surely if you’re modelling the climate you can’t say, “My model’s wrong because of internal climate variability” because that’s exactly what you’re supposed to be modelling.
The difference between what these academics do and what a professional engineer would do is simple. If the model is M(t) and the climatevariability funciton is V(t) or written E(t) = 1+V(t)
Then the academic view of the world is that
Temperature = M(t) x E(t)
Whereas for the engineer would see this as:-
Temperature = V(t) + M(t)
In essence there is almost no difference between these two, but the assumptions on which they are based lead to a very big difference. The academic, in their cosy out-of-touch world which only cares about curve fitting to data doesn’t need to worry about being sued if the “bridge falls down”. So they can assume that the model is right and can dismiss that awkward thing called “natural variability” ignore the errors in E(t) and with a wave of their hand magically assume they “averaged out” and ignored. (1/f noise doesn’t average out). In contrast the engineer (who deal with the real world where people die if they are not right) would start from the premise that nothing was known for sure unless or until they were confident they knew how big M(t)’s contribution was. This is in our culture: “expect the unexpected” … expect natural variability. So engineers who are trained to be cautious in real world situations (not ivory towers and grant applications) and who are drilled in the true meaning of “confidence” (models that don’t fail, bridges that don’t collapse, weather forecasts that aren’t disastrously wrong) … we want models which attain the engineer’s meaning of “confidence” and everything else is “natural variability”.
For the academic … “confidence” … is only a paper exercise that the curve fitted
This leads to two very different viewpoints:-
Academic Temperature = M(t) …. Global temperature is the model and confidence= “it fitted”.
Engineer = Temeprature = V(t) …. Global temperature cannot be modelled unless or until we are sure there is a model that works and confidence is your credibility at getting it right first time.

Claude Harvey

Note the “spin” in the linked Pacific Climate article summarizing the paper:
“Over long time scales, global climate models successfully simulate changes in a variety of climate variables, including the global mean surface temperature since 1900. However, over shorter time scales the match between models and observations may be weaker.”
Translation: “We’re still all going to burn up and die if we don’t drown first!”

RMB says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:31 am

Try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. At 450degsC the surface should quickly boil, in fact it remains cool. You can not heat water through the surface and thats why they are all having a problem.

Yes, but you can heat water with a stream of air with a dewpoint higher than the temperature of the water. And possibly with a wet bulb temperature greater than the water temperture.
Hint – if you see fog forming over an ocean, you can be pretty confident that realtively warm, moist air is advecting over the water surface and that moisture is condensing on the surface. That releases heat that warms the water, wave action mixes is downward.
The wet bulb temperature is a temperature that an air mass can bring water too by conduction and evaporation. The reason the heat gun doesn’t work well is due to the hot dry air evaporating the water surface.

Steve Keohane

Gail Combs says:September 5, 2013 at 3:56 am
gnomish says: @ September 5, 2013 at 2:59 am
… repeat the experiment with an infrared heater.
you may be able to heat the water slightly but you will find that the top layer absorbs most of the radiation and produces vapor in response – then the vapor absorbs the radiation and carries it off.
some numbers on that would make an interesting comparison.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed.
A heat gun will ‘froth’ the water causing disruption of the surface boundary layer. (That type of disturbance is one of the arguments used by warmists to say the oceans absorb heat from CO2.)

Gail, isn’t the ‘normal’ state of the ocean surface ‘frothed’, due to wave and wind action?

Geoff Sherrington

1. When temperature anomalies are used, is the temperature of the reference period (which is subtracted from the reading to give the anomaly) also adjusted when the rest of the data are adjusted?
2. When it is stated that Earth is recovering from the Little Ice Age by getting warmer, where is the source of more heat and is it a long-term source (like a warmed ocean portion releasing heat) or is it a quick-changing source, like a radiation imbalance in the atmosphere?
I think it is weak to argue that the Earth is recovering from an LIA unless a mechanism is given, one that is consistent with measurements.
For those who query the actual temperature change in the last 20 years, do try the UAH or RSS satellite record. Note, however, that there is no compelling argument that temperatures taken from a Stevenson screen 2.5 m above the surface of the Earth should be the same as (not offset from) those from a satellite measuring microwaves from a thickness of oxygen some distance above the Earth.

Bruce Cobb

Except no one’s claiming that there has been a “pause” for 20 years. Calling a rise in temperature at the rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade sure doesn’t sound like a “pause”, although it could be termed a slowdown. And there it is. By cherry-picking the last 20 years, instead of the last, say 17 years, they can claim a “slowdown”. It’s a way of back-pedaling, and thus keeping their precious CO2-centric models alive for at least a while longer.

davideisenstadt

only one complaint…
“For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four
times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b).”
it kinda pissante but… the rate is one fourth that of the average simulated trend…
you cant be four times smaller than anything… once you get to one time smaller, youre at zero.
just saying it cause its true.

bit chilly

uk banks were made to pay back customers for mis-sold policies.i trust the government will be paying us all back the 15% green energy tax we are currently paying,and the inflated vehicle tax for vehicles producing higher amounts of co2 ,along with the funding diverted from important research into cancer etc ?
is there any organised concerted effort in the US or the UK to petition government with the now constant stream of information falsifying the cAGW hypothesis ? if not ,it is time it was organised by ordinary citizens.
in the UK a petition with 100,000 signatories must be discussed in parliament. is there such a petition active at the moment ?

gnomish says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:59 am

kadaka
repeat the experiment with an infrared heater.
you may be able to heat the water slightly but you will find that the top layer absorbs most of the radiation and produces vapor in response – then the vapor absorbs the radiation and carries it off.
some numbers on that would make an interesting comparison

That’s a completely different experiment.
What I expect will happen is that evaporation will occur and raise the dew point and wet bulb temperature of the air in the room (kitchen, a stove top was in use). We can ignore the wet bulb temperature as there is little wind. As the dew point goes above the water temperature, the water will begin to warm and conduction will transport heat downward.
A completely different experiment.

richardscourtney says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:03 am
——————————————————
It’s no lie. Voodoo priests that truly serve the tribal chief can devine a future that serves his interest, no matter what they have said in the past.