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.
BBould:
Thankyou for your post at September 12, 2013 at 8:53 am which is addressed to me and concludes saying
AGW is and always has been a political issue.
For my analysis of how the started please see
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
Please read the introduction which explains how and why that analysis was conducted BEFORE AGW became a scare and predicted that it would become a serious issue.
And please note its Figure 2 and observe that the scare would ‘run’ if all reference to science (on the right of the diagram) were removed. So, science has always been an adjunct to (excuse for?) the AGW-scare, and I think it still is.
However, the public has been misled into thinking the scare has a scientific basis. This is my major concern because the scare has resulted in damage to the conduct of all science and not only ‘climate science’. And the public understanding of the scare can only be corrected by informing them of the true nature of the scare.
Therefore, I agree about the need to inform the public about the reality of so-called ‘climate science’ but the problem is ‘how?’. Importantly, we need a clear message to present to the public, and that is why I argue that the existing model failure needs to be clearly stated.
I will be pleased if Lord Monckton can obtain the agreement on model validation criterion which he seeks, but I doubt he can. Whether or not he can, I stress that I think we need to proclaim the simple truth that the climate models have failed and that failure demonstrates the understandings of climate used in the models are wrong.
As for informing politicians, I have done my bit, and I was pleased with the results of the Copenhagen Conference which in December 2009 killed any possibility of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. I can provide politicians with information they want to negotiate about AGW, but people like me lack the expertise in political lobbying which is now needed.
The political expertise of people like Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, Vaklav Klaus, and etc. now needs to be mobilised. And the time is past when there was usefulness for people like me who have been working in the background to inform politicians of the nature of the science.
I hope I have explained my view.
Richard
Bill says:
September 12, 2013 at 7:03 am
…. “It is called the Jet Stream going from Zonal to Meridional flow. Meridional flow gives you blocking highs leading to floods, droughts very cold or very hot for a long time.”
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….
>>>>>>>>>>
Given the recovery of the Arctic sea ice to within 2 standard deviations of normal (gray) this year since January – link The lower than normal Arctic temperature – linkand the record high Antarctic Sea Ice – link. This summer/fall/winter will certainly be a test for Masters conjecture now won’t it? (It has been darn cool and wet this summer in NC BTW.)
(Anthony has the ice data sets on a link to the left.)
richardscourtney says:
September 12, 2013 at 4:56 am
Richard, I was not disagreeing with you, merely providing a little history. My comment was made up of direct quotes from Mike Hulme and Hadley.
Don’t let Terry Oldberg wind you up.
Philip Jones says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 8:42 am
….Some of us are young enough to have a decent chance of being around in 2100. I love challenging my brainwashed teachers in class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, lord if you are reading here at WUWT with any regularity you must be a holy terror. Wouldn’t I love to be a fly on the wall in your class room.
(Watch out that they don’t try to medicate you in to another one of the brain dead.)
DennisA:
Thankyou for your message to me at September 12, 2013 at 9:45 am.
I know you were not disagreeing with me and I was trying to add clarity for others to read. I apologise if I offended: that was not my intention.
And thankyou for your advice about Terry Oldberg. As you perceive, after all these months (years?) I have got fed up with his nonsense.
Richard
You realize, of course, that the 17-year hiatus period is just a setup for the next hockey stick.
Gail Combs says:September 12, 2013 at 9:16 am
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/40231/1/06-1989.pdf
Also presentation PDF here.
BBould says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 8:53 am
…..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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
A bit of background on the ‘Follow the Money’ aspect.
The banks own the press, or at least a large portion of it. link
WHAT IS IN IT FOR THE BANKS?
THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT (and a bit of damage control)
AND THE PLOT THICKENS:
RUSSIA and company did not take this sitting down.
The World Bank and IMF are not held in very high regarded by those they ‘Help’ either. link
Behind the scenes is Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organization who tells us the actual plans.
Lamy considers the EU as the ‘Model’ for Global Governance BTW link
Seems that the BRICS countries are not too impressed and have moved on from those 1930’s plans leaving the World Bank/IMF/WTO manipulators flatfooted. Now if only us little guys can keep from getting stomped to death while the elephants dance.
Gail, you are getting far off topic…
Terminology: An “event” can be anything which occurs. More usefull are terms such as suspected causal variables (independent variables) and suspected dependent variables. And since we have so many of the independent variables intercorrelated with one and other, the result is a high incidence of mulicolinearity. I suppose if one buys the argument that CO2 follows temperature then using the 202 months of no temperature increase one could postulate that this “event”, ie independent variable might cause CO2 to increase less in the future as a result.
AJB says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 10:25 am
Thanks for the new links.
I’d like to know about the guy who thinks he may be around in 2100. If he was born today he’d be 87 in 2100. Let me know what supplements you’re taking or are you counting on significant advance in the genetics field of medicine?
Jim G says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 10:34 am
….I suppose if one buys the argument that CO2 follows temperature then using the 202 months of no temperature increase one could postulate that this “event”, ie independent variable might cause CO2 to increase less in the future as a result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are several estimates of the ‘Lag’ in the temperature-CO2 data. One of the WUWT discussions on CO2 – Temp correlations.
Richardscourtney”
Says “The economy of every country is affected by the performance of the world economy. The economic disruption in the developed world would harm economic activity everywhere. The largest affects would be in the developed countries because their economies are largest. But the worst effects would be suffered by the world’s poorest peoples (people who are near to starvation are starved by economic disruption.).”
It certainly does appear that we have a very flat global economy presently, well predicted!
I very much liked your article, especially from an English viewpoint because that information was all new to me. Many of the reasons you mentioned I had thought about at one time or another but was never able to express them nearly as well as you.
Good article I have bookmarked it and will use it as needed.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
September 12, 2013 at 8:39 am
Bill says, “Yes, that is what I heard from Jeff Masters, along with his scientific colleagues…
Aha Bill – there’s your problem…don’t go “Wunderground” and expect to get any unbiased information on climate! In fact…you don’t have go to “Wunderground” at all – there are MUCH better weather information sites on the internet.
I notice that it is occasionally mentioned that one “cause” of global warming over the 20th century may be that the planet is “recovering” from the Little Ice Age. However, I do not see many mentions of what evidence we should be looking for to determine when the threshold for that “recovery” is achieved. The current hiatus might for instance mark the threshold of that “recovery” and the planetary pause as it considers the continued descent into the major glacial epoch a few tens of thousands of years from now.
Gail Combs:
Says: ” The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020″
That scares me! If its all about the money it will be a very difficult train to stop. However if it can be shown that it would benefit the global economy by doing away with carbon trading there may be a chance. Go Australia!
Thanks for your comments Gail Combs.
Gail Combs says:
September 12, 2013 at 10:47 am
Thanks for the link. Have seen it before but at my age a memory refresher is always welcome. Probably the 202 month lack of warming is not sufficient to register any proof of CO2 following temp but if the cooling continues, as many suspect, there may be your proof in the future. Not that it will influence the truly religious among the warmers or the politicians who use the “cause” to gain power or the researchers who use it to obtain grants..
richard verney says:
September 11, 2013 at 11:50 pm
KevinK says:
September 11, 2013 at 7:48 pm
///////////////////////////////
Further to the above post.
It is amazing that if DWLWIR was a real real source of energy capable of performing sensible work that no one has ever been able to extraxt useful work from the 324 w/m2 of DWLWIR (see attached diagram http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html ).
Can’t get the math to work out on the diagram.
When I add the goinzies and the gooutzies I come up with a mismatch of 30 w/m^2 at the earth’s surface. Where is my math error?
And at what altitude is the w/m^2 based upon ..
I don’t get it something about radiation falling off at a fourth power when distance is squared….
Duster says:
September 12, 2013 at 11:02 am
You have identified a troubling and challenging question I’ve been asking for a while. Most likely, the climatologist who does solve it will have earned his or her Nobel Prize.
A couple of points: It’s not really true that the temperature increase from the LIA is a “cause” of what we call modern global warming, but rather it is the “symptom” of global warming. Does that make sense? No honest and humble scientist or layman can say they know “exactly” what “caused” the long term temperature cycles we have identified as Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Modern Warming Period. And, in fact, there are almost certainly several different “causes” some at odds with each other at various times, amplitudes, and periods – if indeed, all of the causes are cyclical themselves. The result of all “causes” together are combined into what we believe is that long term temperature record.
SO, to answer your question, you need to make several assumptions. First, you need to assume that the same root causes that affected temperature in the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Ages will still cause the same temperature change now. In fact, that is the entire root of the CAGW agenda! They claim that “logically” man’s CO2 MUST affect temperatures today because the CO2 has been added now, and was not present to the same amount in the those past few warming periods. (They discount obviously any thought or consideration of the much earlier periods when CO2 was many times higher than it will be in the future due to man’s release, but that too is one of their faults.)
Two. Once you have made the assumption that the long-term temperature record IS cyclical, AND that that period of long-term cycles will repeat or can be predicted to repeat at some time period, AND that repetition will be at a similar amount as before – or predictably less than before since each hot period seems smaller than its predecessors! – THEN you need to figure out what the period was, when the next peak will be (since that period may not be a pure regular beat, and how high the past peaks were and what their trends will be.
So, when were the past three peaks of the last three Warming Periods?
From that, when will the next peak occur?
With that, what will the next peak likely be?
Now, on top of all of that, there appears to be a short-term cycle of temperture laid over the long term temperature cycle.
No, we don’t what causes that short-term cycle either.
We don’t know if that short term cycle will repeat in the future either.
So, what are the most recent short term “peaks” and flat spots and dips in the modern temperature record?
Once the short term cycle is determined, then add both cycles together and look:
Is the 2000-2010 peak merely a “flat spot” in the temperature record that will end up with surface temperatures increasing again as they did from 1975 through 1998?
Were the 1935-1945 peak and 2000-2010 the maximum of the Modern Warming Period, or will there be one more “peak” about 55-60 years after 2000? Well, that depends on when you consider the Medieval Warming period “peak” was, doesn’t it?
Now, since the root cause of the long term temperature cycle is not known, one could argue rightfully, that we have no business looking at long term temperature predictions. So what?
We did not know WHY gravity forced the planets into elliptical orbits, nor WHY the continents moved, nor HOW DNA “worked” but all those processes were USED with great success for many years before the “WHY” was answered.
“Bill says:
September 12, 2013 at 7:03 am ”
If you want any respect here you need to provide data to back up your claims.
Please define the statistical definition of “exceptional” weather that you are using in your diatribes.
Otherwise, you are just another foolish eco cultist.
Robert of Ottawa says:
September 11, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Bruce Cobb,
I expect the IPCC will switch track to the dangerous extreme weather events line. This “argument” seems to be in vogue amongst the Warmistas.
I agree, Crichton’s predictions are the only ones holding up.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
September 12, 2013 at 8:34 am
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 3[3]0ppm 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”
////////////////////////
My comment is based upon their assumptions with respect to TCS & ECS which underpin the models that they use to project warming.
Of course, it may be that the IR bands are already saturated at today’s level of CO2, but that is not the position programmed into the models. (and my comment therefore ignores that).
Assuming that currently the IR bands are not already saturated, then the positive forcing associated with today’s level of CO2 (ie., around 400ppm) is greater than the positive forcing associated with CO2 at say the 1960s level (ie., ~320ppm).
Whilst it may be the case that the increase in forcing in relaticve terms beween CO2 increasing from 380 to 400ppm, is less than the increase in forcing in relative terms between CO2 increasinfg from 310 to 330ppm (because the effect is logarithmic) we are not looking at the relative increase, but rather the absolute forcing associated with the then current level of CO2. In other words taking an average, we are looking at the absolute forcing of CO2 at 320ppm 9the mid point between 310 to 330ppm) and comparing this with the forcing at 390ppm (being the mid point between 380 to 400ppm).
Leaving aside aerosls and volcanoes, a pause in the temperature record should only occur when the positive forcing associated with CO2 is broadly similar to the negative forcing associated with natural variation such that one cancels out the other.
When CO2 levels are at say 310 rising to 330ppm (ie., around the 1940s to 1970s), the positive forcing of CO2 may be cancelled out by the negative forcing of natural variation. However, if CO2 levels have reached upwards of 380ppm (as they were in the late 1990s) then since the forcing associated with CO2 at this level is greater than the forcing when CO2 was only 310ppm, it is more difficult for negative forcing associated with natural variation to cancel out the warming effect of CO2. It can only do so if the negative forcing associated with natural variation is greater today than it was say back when CO2 levels were circca 310ppm
This is my point. We need to know at what level of CO2 the models project a temperature hiatus. If this was when CO2 was at say about 300 ppm, or at say 330ppm, it does not adequately explain why there is pause when CO2 is approaching 400ppm.
I hoope that clarifies the point I was seeking to make.
Box of Rocks says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 12:06 pm
….Can’t get the math to work out on the diagram.
When I add the goinzies and the gooutzies I come up with a mismatch of 30 w/m^2 at the earth’s surface. Where is my math error?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might want to take a look at John Kehr’s articles on energy balance.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/category/energy-balance/
RACookPE1978 says:
September 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Shorthand talk will bite one every time. The reason that “cause” was in quotes was to call into attention the very point you make. I tend to prefer uniformitarianism as a basic principle that expresses itself in all earth science. One aspect of that fact is that the physical properties of materials like CO2 do not change over geological time. Thus CO2 from human sources is not different from other sources – well, possibly isotopically, but that doesn’t alter the physical properties that purportedly are what makes important to the AGW hypothesis. That in turn means that CAGW was falsified long before the hypothesis was even advanced. It has been known for many decades now that atmospheric CO2 has been many times present levels in the past. No catastrophe then means none in the future that can be blamed on excess CO2, QED.
I’m not really fond of the idea that long term “climate” patterns are actually cyclical. I think they may be more quasi-cyclical – really chaotic, reflecting movement about a Lorenzian attractor. If you consider the pattern of warm and cold periods over the Pliocene and Pleistocene, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pliocene_benthic_carbonate_18O.png
you see that during the latter Pleistocene the warm-cold “cyclic” pattern deepened and chilled extremely. Compared to the comparatively kindly patterns of the Miocene we’re living in an icebox even during the present interstadial.
@ur momisugly Green Sand says:
September 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Perhaps what is developing over the NW Pacific is just a reflection of the Cold PDO, which began in 2007.
Check out this negative PDO graphic:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/