Guest essay by Christopher Monckton
As soon as the BBC/Maslowski forecast of no sea ice in the Arctic summer by 2013 has been disproven (see countdown on right sidebar), WUWT will need another countdown. May I propose the Santer countdown?
On November 17, 2011, Ben Santer and numerous colleagues, including researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) that, as his press release said,
“shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. … tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
In an earlier posting I demonstrated that for more than 17 years (now 17 years 7 months) the HadCRUt4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset had shown no global warming distinguishable from the combined 2 σ measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties published together with the data themselves.
However, there were those who said that, nevertheless, the HadCRUt4 data appeared to show some warming (albeit less than 1 Cº/century). Well, the first of the five principal datasets to show no warming at all for 17 years is likely to be the RSS dataset of Santer’s own colleagues. Today the data for August 2013 were made available:
The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data from the RSS satellites since November 1996 shows there has been no global warming at all for 202 months (16 years 10 months). In a few more months, unless an el Niño comes along in January, its favorite month, RSS may be the first dataset to show 17 full years with a zero global warming trend.
The NOAA’s 2008 State of the Climate report said 15 or more years without global warming would indicate what was delicately described as a “discrepancy” between prediction and observation.
Fifteen years without warming duly came and went: indeed, Professor Jones of the University of East Anglia was the first to admit this, in response to a question I had suggested to Roger Harrabin of the BBC (who had thought I was daft to suggest that there had been no statistically-significant warming for as much as a decade and a half).
So Santer moved the goalposts.
Taking the mean of all five principal global-temperature datasets (GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH), since the new millennium began on 1 January 2001 there has been no global warming at all for 152 months (12 years 8 months):
Therefore, those who are anxious to believe that the long pause in global warming is what the models expected, or at least allowed for, can take a crumb of comfort from that.
Two important caveats. First, linear trends are not predictions. They are only one way of representing the trend (if any) that has already occurred over a chosen period in a stochastic dataset such as the global mean surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
Secondly, a strong el Niño, or a resumption of stronger solar activity, or simply some hitherto-unexplained factor in natural climate variability, could cause a resumption of global warming at any time. The central consideration, then, is not whether there have been x years without global warming, vexing though this embarrassing statistic is to the true-believers and their models. It is the extent and the persistence of the discrepancy between predicted and observed global warming.
The monthly Global Warming Prediction Index keeps track of this discrepancy. The index number for September 2013, published today, is 0.22 Cº. That is how much the IPCC’s central projection of global warming over the 8 years 8 months from January 2005 to August 2013 has overshot the observed temperature trend.
Today’s index graph shows 34 models’ projections of global warming since January 2005 in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report as an orange region. The IPCC’s central projection, the thick red line, is that the world should have warmed by 0.20 Cº (equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century) since that starting date.
The mean of the RSS and UAH satellite measurements, in dark blue over the bright blue trend-line, shows global cooling of 0.02 Cº (–0.22 Cº/century). The models have thus over-predicted warming since January 2005 by 0.22 Cº (2.55 Cº/century).
The 18 ppmv (202 ppmv/century) rise in the trend on the gray dogtooth CO2 concentration curve, plus other ghg increases, should have caused 0.1 Cº warming, with the remaining 0.1 ºC from previous CO2 increases. No warming has occurred.
On its own, the CO2 increase since 2005 should have caused a radiative forcing of 0.24 Watts per square meter, or 0.34 W m–2 after including the influence of all other greenhouse gases. Even without temperature feedbacks, according to the IPCC’s methods this forcing should have caused 0.1 Cº warming. Adding in the IPCC’s temperature estimates of temperature feedbacks and of previously-committed global warming should have caused up to 0.3 Cº warming since January 2005. None has occurred.
Note how the temperature has failed to rise since 2005, notwithstanding that the CO2 concentration has risen quite rapidly. The usual suspects like to display what they call an “escalator graph” with many of Santer’s “hiatus periods” of 10-12 years without any global warming, but an overall rising trend nonetheless.
However, previous periods free of global warming did not occur while Man was putting more CO2 in the air anything like as rapidly as he is today. Now that CO2 concentration is rising, so should temperature be rising, if the IPCC were correct about how much warming we should expect as CO2 concentration increases.
The “escalator graph”, then, is meaningless, except to the extent that the frequency with which the “hiatus periods” occurs suggests that the probability of seeing anything like the 2.8 Cº warming this century that is the IPCC’s central projection is not very great.
Though the IPCC projects that the world should have warmed by 0.20 Cº (2.33 Cº/century) since 2005, the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite datasets shows cooling of 0.02 Cº (0.22 Cº/century). The predicted and actual trends are visibly diverging. Solar physicists expect significant cooling in the coming decades. If they are right, the divergence will become more than merely embarrassing.
Even as things stand, if the IPCC overshoot over the past 104 months were to continue for 100 years the IPCC’s prediction would exceed the measured trend by more than 2.5 Cº.
If Jeffrey Patterson’s harmonic decomposition of the past 113 years’ temperature records is correct, the world may actually be cooler in 2100 than in 2000.
A shame we shall not be there to see the baffled faces of the profiteers of doom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bill says:September 12, 2013 at 7:03 am […]
Just the fact that there has been a great loss of sea ice is definitely exceptional.
But a 60% increase in ice this year over last is not exceptional…
Bill:
re your bloviation at September 12, 2013 at 7:03 am.
Weather changes. Sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is bad. That is true everywhere.
Weather has extremes. And the extremes have always been severe: that is why they are called extremes. And that, too, is true everywhere.
There is nothing unusual about Arctic ice cover: it is varying as it always has.
Importantly, no recent climate behaviours are unprecedented in the holocene.
It would be news if weather were to stop varying. Your post contains no news.
Richard
Bill, the claim that the Arctic sea ice minimum was responsible for changes in the jet streams was refuted by another recent paper. The jet stream is most likely controlled by the 4 phases of the PDO/AMO (and variations within).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50880/abstract
“Previous studies have suggested that Arctic amplification has caused planetary‒scale waves to elongate meridionally and slow down, resulting in more frequent blocking patterns and extreme weather. Here trends in the meridional extent of atmospheric waves over North America and the North Atlantic are investigated in three reanalyses, and it is demonstrated that previously reported positive trends are likely an artifact of the methodology.”
Is the polar see-saw due to change? It turns out that Antarctica has a record warmth so far this year while the Arctic had record cold this summer. Does this mean the trends are now going to flip with reductions in ice in Antarctica while the Arctic sees increases in ice? Will the alarmists change their tune if this happens?
The drama builds.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
September 12, 2013 at 1:10 am
Excellent piece. It would, and continues to seem, that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is spurious and not causal in nature. Or as some believe, the reverse causality with temperature causing the CO2 increase with a lag in time may still show to be more the case. I continue to believe that climate consists of so many variables for which we have poor or no reliable historic data as to be chaotic in nature and be unpredictable, at this time, with the possible exception of the Milankovitch cycles. And even these are only roughly reliable in predicting when real climate change ensues.
richardscourtney (Sept. 11, 2013 at 3:02 pm):
On Sept. 11 at 3:02 pm you state that “There is an ‘event’ (i.e. the global temperature in 1997)…” To state that the global temperature in 1997 is an example of an event is logically similar to stating that in a flip of a coin, “heads” is an example of an event. Actually, it is the flip that is an example of an event. Would you care to take another stab at the identity of the events underlying the climate models of IPCC AR4 or do you now admit that there are none?
Bill says:
September 12, 2013 at 7:03 am […]
“Just the fact that there has been a great loss of sea ice is definitely exceptional.”
Bill, you DO realize that melted arctic ice will begin refreezing in about 20 days and continue increasing until April next year? So fear not, new ice is on the way!!
Terry Oldberg says:
September 11, 2013 at 8:23 pm
“…you have steadfastly refused to face up to the issue that is raised by my peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .”
I laughed when I realized that he is calling a blog entry a “peer-reviewed article”. He both misrepresents the nature of the link and employs a polysemic term (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review), but to make matters worse, he invokes this fallacy in order to use another fallacy: argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).
To quote the man in black: “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect”.
O_o
Terry Oldberg:
In your post addressed to me at September 12, 2013 at 8:17 am you ask
NO! But show me your back and I am willing to take a stab.
Stop wasting space on the thread with your nonsensical and untrue drivel.
Richard
Richard Verney said, “Likewise, it is easier to have a relatively short period of hiatus when say CO2 levels are ~310 rising to ~330ppm than it is when CO2 levels are ~380 rising to ~400ppm”
Actually you have that exactly backwards. Since the effect of CO2 on temperature is purportedly logarithmic, it should have a GREATER effect on temperature when rising from 310 to 300ppm than when rising from 380 to 400 ppm. Therefore, the higher the concentration of CO2 gets, the less effect it should have, and the greater the likelihood of a “pause” (perhaps because the CO2 absorption bands are saturated and it isn’t really having any further effect at all?? [speculation])
Bill says, “Yes, that is what I heard from Jeff Masters, along with his scientific colleagues – in their view it is related to the loss of seasonal sea ice in the Arctic – creating Meridional flow. And that the pattern will be more stalled weather systems that create climatic events like the flooding rains we have seen in southeast Asia in June. It is just not weird weather in California, it is the general pattern throughout the globe that is creating exceptional events. Just the fact that there has been a great loss of sea ice is definitely exceptional.”
Umm… Bill…. ARE YOU AWARE that the Arctic has 60% greater sea ice extent as of September 11th 2013 compared to the Arctic sea ice extent of September 11, 2012? If you ARE aware of that totally indisputable fact, then please explain to me how a 60% GAIN in year/year Arctic sea ice can be described as a loss???
Monckton of Brenchley:
Would you care to try to identify for us the events underlying the general circulation models of AR4?
By the way, the article that you characterize as “drool” is an example of an argument. It can be concluded from this argument that you have repeatedly been guilty of the equivocation fallacy in your own writings.
Good work.
PS. Some of us are young enough to have a decent chance of being around in 2100. I love challenging my brainwashed teachers in class.
@justaknitter,
The “ZOMG METHANE BOMB” “hypothesis” has been thoroughly debunked here, there, and everywhere else multiple times. Whadams has no idea what he is talking about. Further, if you go to the grauniad for your “environmental news” you won’t ever get any real information whatsoever, it is all hopelessly biased.
@ur momisugly Terry Oldberg
“Would you care to try to identify for us the events underlying the general circulation models of AR4?”
ROFL, what would be the point… they are not even valid models to begin with, and they do not model any actual events, so why do you keep harping on the whole stupid “identify the events” meme???
@ur momisugly Terry Oldberg
“To state that the global temperature in 1997 is an example of an event is logically similar to stating that in a flip of a coin, “heads” is an example of an event. Actually, it is the flip that is an example of an event.”
Ok, so what you are saying is that the flip of the coin is the event, and the coin landing on heads is the outcome of the event. Sure, makes sense. Now, how does this relate in any way whatsoever to the convoluted point you seem to be attempting to make relating to this thread?
It seems to me that you are attempting to say that temperature cannot even be modeled because it is not an event, merely and outcome of an event or series of events or collection of events or whatever. If that is the point you are trying to make, then PLEASE SAY SO! If that is not the point you are trying to make then PLEASE MAKE A CONCISE AND COGENT POINT rather than clogging up the thread with stuff that people cannot even properly interpret, much less care about.
PeterB in Indianapolis:
In your post at September 12, 2013 at 8:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/#comment-1415163
you rightly say then in parenthesis ask
In the atmosphere CO2 has two absorbtion bands and they are near 15 microns and 4 microns.
Most IR by CO2 is absorbed in the 15 micron band and almost none in the 4 micron band.
The 15 micron band is saturated and increases its absorbtion by band broadening. Indeed, this saturation is why there is the logarithmic effect which you mention.
Richard
Richardscourtney:
Say – “This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.”
What can we do then? Obviously nothing has turned the tide. Perhaps its time to agree on some metrics that will falsify AGW? It’s almost as if AGW has a life all of its own and it appears all political.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
September 12, 2013 at 4:30 am
Richard Courtney is right that we should draw attention to the missing warming that was supposed to be in the pipeline but is embarrassingly absent. However, there is also value in persuading governments, several of whose more sensible representatives read Watts Up With That, to put pressure on the IPCC to lay down some clear criteria against which their predictions will be weighed in the balance at a specified date. If the IPCC had known all along that governments were going to impose upon it the discipline that is automatic in the preparation of clinical trials, its reports would not have been so exaggerated over the years.
Didn’t a group of Gov. go to the IPCC this month to question parts of the report? I agree also with Lord Monckton because this is a political issue as much and maybe even more than a scientific issue, though one wonders how it started out. Public opinion and media opinion must be swayed if AGW is to go away. I don’t think science will be enough unfortunately.
Terry Oldburg: While Mr. Monckton’s article uses the term “predict” on a number of occasions, predictions are not a feature of the investigation that is described by the article. In logic, a “prediction” is an extrapolation from an observed state of a system to an unobserved but observable state of the same system. For example, it is an extrapolation from the observed state “cloudy” to the unobserved but observable state “rain in the next 24 hours.” By convention, the former state is called the “condition” while the latter state is called the outcome. A pairing of a condition with an outcome is a description of an event but for the research that is described by Monckton’s article, there are no events. This is clear from the fact that there are no relative frequencies, for relative frequencies are a feature of a collection of events but there are none here.
Has anybody explained to policy makers and advocates such as James Hansen that these models are not “predictions? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the world will evolve according to the models.
Why is a 202 month interval of no warming not an “event”? It was just such an event that Santner et al showed was a minimal duration for concluding that “climate had changed”. Ironically, if that is the correct word, Hansen et al started alarming the world that “climate had changed” to a warming phase after a shorter event than 17 years. So far, 100% of the most recent intervals of 202 months duration have displayed no warming.
Bill Marsh says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 5:58 am
“Taking the mean of all five principal global-temperature datasets (GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH)”
Isn’t an average of datasets that are based primarily on the same raw data essentially meaningless?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are not the same. Three (GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC) are land-based measurements and two are satellite-based (RSS, UAH) measurements.
Terry Oldburg: Would you care to try to identify for us the events underlying the general circulation models of AR4?
That might be an interesting question. The event that is the target of the post here is the unpredicted 202 month long event of no warming. It is a clear contrast to the models’ result of 202 months of monotonic warming.
Me Lord. Whats the best coarse of action to go about reclaiming my Co2 based road tax which is now anually £490 (same as a Double Decker Bus with 6 x the Co2 emmisions) and that of my good ladys 15 yr old vehicle which is £220 as being ‘Miss Sold’ , (similar to PPI claims)
I have contacted the Minister Ed Davey and his associates on many occations (while keeping him informed of all the recent developments in the climate saga via accurate links) about being Carbon Taxed to death, ….. to no avail What would you suggest ?
It is going to get worse from here as the temperature decline will be increasing going forward.
As I said AGW theory has already been proven wrong to those of us who know better.
Legatus says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 6:31 am
….As for the influence of the sun, I think people are missing something….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point we do not know although there is some supporting data such as that from Richard Feyman’s Sister, Dr. Joan Feynman.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (The link I had to the actual paper is dead)
There are lots of other papers a listing with links can be found HERE: Solar and Cosmic Rays
A Sun-Climate connection of course is always under attack because it could shoot down CAGW.
Gail,
It seems to me that anyone who would discount a connection of the Sun to the climate of the Earth would have to be a true “denier”. The Sun’s input is about 99.99999% (or some such) of the energy input into the climate system.
Now I know that certain people (you know who you are) will claim that the energy input from the Sun is so close to “constant” that it can be taken as a constant, so it does not account for any VARIATIONS in climate. However, it seems to me that more and more such variations are being discussed (here and elsewhere) all the time.
It also seems to me that most of the attempted refutation of the proposed Sun-Climate links usually boils down to “nope, doesn’t actually happen” with no actual supporting data to show that it in fact doesn’t happen.
I think that we will not only find that the Sun represents virtually all of the energy input into the climate system, but we will likely also find that the Sun represents a VERY significant portion of the explanation of the variability of our climate once more and more people start really studying this.