A few days ago, the Georgia Tech press release for Wyatt and Curry (2013) included a quote from Marcia Wyatt, who said the stoppage in global warming “could extend into the 2030s”. (See the WattsUpWithThat post here and Judith Curry’s post here. The paper is here. Also see the SpringerLink-ClimateDynamics webpage.)
Now, there’s another paper predicting the cessation of global warming will last for more than another decade, with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation-induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere through 2027 (prompted by the North Atlantic Oscillation).
See TheHockeySchtick post New paper finds natural North Atlantic Oscillation controls Northern Hemisphere temperatures 15-20 years in advance. The paper is Li et al (2013) NAO implicated as a predictor of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature multidecadal variability. (Full paper is here.) The Li et al. (2013) abstract reads (my boldface):
The twentieth century Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (NHT) is characterized by a multidecadal warming–cooling–warming pattern followed by a flat trend since about 2000 (recent warming hiatus). Here we demonstrate that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is implicated as a useful predictor of NHT multidecadal variability. Observational analysis shows that the NAO leads both the detrended NHT and oceanic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) by 15–20 years. Theoretical analysis illuminates that the NAO precedes NHT multidecadal variability through its delayed effect on the AMO due to the large thermal inertia associated with slow oceanic processes. A NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT [Northern Hemisphere Temperature], which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971–2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted. NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a sea level pressure-based index. Sea level pressures are related to wind patterns. And wind patterns impact how, where and when warm waters from the tropical Atlantic migrate north…which, in turn, impacts the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic as a whole. Li et al (2013) are basically saying that multidecadal changes in the sea level pressure and wind patterns in the North Atlantic are a useful predictor of multidecadal periods of warming and cooling in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.
It’s time for the IPCC to start thinking about cutting back on their predictions of future global warming by at least 50%. The public is catching on to the fact that if natural variability can stop global warming for 2 to 3 decades, then it also contributed to the warming from 1975 to the turn of the century—something the IPCC failed to account for in its projections.
johnbelljubble:
At October 14, 2013 at 1:59 am you say
OK, I understand you to be saying you have the education which enables you to assess evidence and/or arguments which can convince that “AGW is a myth or not a problem”.
Obviously, you are the man I have been seeking, so please help me.
I am looking to be convinced that unicorns are a myth or not a problem. Please provide evidence that will convince me.
To show sincerity in my request, I list for you some of the evidence that AGW is a myth and not a problem.
Absence of discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for at least the last 17 years despite continuing increase to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Missing ‘committed warming’ which IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. not ‘projected’) from GHGs already in the system.
No alteration to the rates of global warming through the twentieth century before and after 1940 although more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions being after 1940.
Missing tropospheric ‘hot spot’ required for significant water vapour feedback.
Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ required to make the AGW-hypothesis match observations.
etc.
I look forward to your providing me with a similar list of evidence which demonstrates that unicorns are a myth or not a problem.
Richard
Thank you all for your replies. Eric1skeptic: Yes, I have commented on Skeptical Science also, and indicated there that I am having this conversation on here. I don’t intend in engaging in trolling – please let me know if anything I say comes across as upsetting.
There is quite a lot of content in the responses, so if you don’t mind I’ll part some of it for now – we can come back to it later on. Parked items listed below.
Eric1skeptic, Good post. Would a correct summary of your post be that there are man-made effects of climate change / global warming (e.g. sea-level rise), but that these are too small and uncertain to be of concern / warrant action?
richardscourtney: would a correct summary of your post (ignoring the unicorns for a moment) be that the warming that we have seen does not seem to correlate with the increases in CO2, which therefore cannot be the cause? The “missing heat” you mention sounds interesting – I’d be very grateful if you could post a reference for that, please? And so we’re talking about the same thing, you mention no heat for at least 17 years. I’ve seen the argument that there has been no warming since 1998, but that was only 15 years ago, so I’m guessing you are referring to something else?
Parked items:
– Burden of proof;
– Francis & Vavrus 2012;
– The effect of sea-level rise on the height requirements for storm surge barriers;
– Projected costs after the next few decades;
– The existence of unicorns (sorry to hear you are worried about them);
– Tropospheric hot spot.
Ulric Lyons
I am sorry for misspelling your name Ulric. I have great respect for your work and your ideas and that will not change despite you acid tone.
According to my paper a phase catastrophe occurs around about the time when the syzygies of Jupiter and Saturn START occurring before solar maximum.
Solar Cycle 4____________ ~ 1787
JS Syzygy______________ ~ 1791______ phase ~ 4 years after maximum
JS Syzygy______________ ~ 1802
Solar Cycle 5 __________ ~ 1805______ phase ~ 3 years before maximum
This means that the actual phase catastrophe occurred about half way between these two events
[when the phase lag would have been zero]. The actual date would be some time between 1794 and 1798 – though the precision is severly limited by the crudeness of the JS syzygy lag method.
“Jubble”, yes there are current effects. One is that global warming adds some amount to the high temperatures in heat waves. That might be as much as a few degrees F, although I would note that 21 out of 50 US State record highs are from the 1930’s, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes Those highs lack any urban heat island pollution that is responsible for the majority of new high temperature records currently. Heat waves start and end due to natural causes (weather) with no observed or (near term) predicted connection to AGW.
Along with that, those warmer temperatures add to drought. Like heat waves, it is important to note that drought patterns come from longer term natural weather patterns (e.g. La Nina causing drought in the U.S.). There is no evidence of increasing drought in the US, see figure 8 here: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15 The prediction for drought under AGW depends on expansion of the Hadley cells, but that is somewhat speculative because it may by trumped by geography (i.e. may not apply to continental North America).
There is speculation of increased floods, but no evidence other than somewhat abstract studies of rain gauge readings. The incidence of actual floods is flat, see fig 5 in the link above. The rest of the charts in that link show that “extreme” weather is mostly flat or a bit decreasing and the costs of extreme weather are mostly decreasing.
The future is quite uncertain, but part of the uncertainty is whether we stay in a lull (no global warming) or even get a bit of global cooling. It is a bit ironic that you posted in a thread about the possibility of cessation of global warming to ask about concerns about global warming. Why not ask about our concerns about global cooling?
The first step anyone should take who wants to understand climate issues is to study historic climate. You will find that there is nothing unusual going on at the present time. It was much warmer during much of the Holocene optimum and likely warmer during the Minoan WP, the Roman WP and the Medieval WP. It was also warmer during much of the previous interglacials such as the Eemian. Once a person understands we are not particularly warm at present, then the point about there being nothing to prove becomes obvious.
Recent climate changes just reinforces this point. The warming in the early 20th century matches that of the late 20th century despite 5 times less GHG emissions. The points where warming changes to cooling and vice versa match the changes in the PDO perfectly. The latest change occurring around 2005. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend
The only prediction that alarmists can hang their hats on is the loss of Arctic sea/land ice which is easily explained by the AMO. Warmer water means less ice. The loss of ice has tracked perfectly and since the AMO will now generally trend downward over the next 30 years we are likely to see a upward trend in Arctic ice.
Does this mean there is no effect from GHG emission? No, but once you start to factor in the ocean cycles, what’s left is not significant and likely very beneficial to mankind. Slightly longer growing seasons, expanded agricultural acreage, higher growth rates leading to greater yields, reduction in extreme weather, etc.
I would also add to your post that Greenland got its name from the Vikings. They so named it because of the fertile soil, and they grew wheat and barley crops there.
Proof that mankind has prospered with warmer weather.
Nicola Scafetta said:
October 13, 2013 at 9:23 am
In fact, although Wilson and other have qualitatively conjectured a decrease of solar activity during these decades.
No Nicola, If you look at figure 6 of our 2008 paper:
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85–93
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
You will see that we gave a quantitative rule that enable people to calculate when phase catastrophes occur. We claimed that following the onset of a phase catastrophe, the intensity of solar sunspot cycle maximums would collapse for at least two solar (Schwabe) cycles.
Let’s apply the rule:
Solar Cycle 23 Maximum (from monthly smoothed SSN)__________Mar 2000
Syzygy of Jupiter and Saturn (Both on same side of the Sun)______Jun 2000
So the syzygy phase lag is ~ 0 years
Syzygy of Jupiter and Saturn (Both on opposite sides of the Sun)__Feb 2011
Solar Cycle 24 Maximum (rough estimate)____________________Sept 2013
So the syzygy phase lag is ~ 2 1/2 years after maximum.
This indicates that Solar phase catastrophe occurred some time in the early 2000’s
and that maximums for both cycle 24 and cycle 25 would be considerably below normal.
This was not a qualitative prediction.
Of course that should have read
So the syzygy phase lag is ~ 2 1/2 years BEFORE maximum.
johnbelljubble:
I provided an answer to your original question and asked you an equivalent question in return. Your reply to me at October 14, 2013 at 5:37 am says in total.
I deal with your “Parked items” first.
To begin, I am disappointed at your failure to address my question to you. I gave you the courtesy of answering your question but you have not responded in kind to mine. But my question was my most significant point (which may be why you have avoided it).
You asked for evidence to dispel an assertion of an assertion which can be considered a myth; i.e. AGW.
I asked for evidence to dispel an assertion of an assertion which can be considered a myth; i.e. unicorns.
In both cases the responsibility is on the person alleging the putative ‘threat’ exists and nobody has a responsibility to accept the allegation is a ‘truth’ which can be disproved: this is because it is a logical impossibility to disprove a negative.
But in your “Parked items” you add to your list of assertions that have no foundation and you stick on the end my point about the missing tropospheric ‘hot spot’. There can be no future costs and no “projected” effects of something which does not exist.
There can be no future effects of something which does not exist and there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – for the existence AGW (or unicorns) but there is much evidence that AGW as emulated by climate models does not exist.
I listed some of that evidence.
And that brings us to your response to my evidence which you have provided.
Your post does not mention (a) the missing “committed warming” and (b) the lack of accelerated warming before and after 1940 and “Parks” the missing tropospheric ‘hot spot’ all of which I cited as evidence of lack of AGW (I think I understand why). But your post asks me three questions on other matters. I address each of your questions in turn.
Q1
No. That is an obvious distortion and misrepresentation of my post.
The AGW hypothesis asserts that anthropogenic (i.e. from human activity) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) will overwhelm the climate system to induce global warming because atmospheric CO2 concentrations of GHGs govern global temperature. Both the anthropogenic emissions and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have continued to increase but there has been no discernible (at 95% confidence) rise in global temperature for 17 years.
Q2
I am surprised that you claim you do not know. A good start on your education about this would be to use the Search facility on the front page of WUWT. Enter ‘Trenberth missing heat’ and you will obtain a list of articles which include all the information, links and references you may require.
Q3
Again, you misrepresent what I wrote. I did not mention “heat”: I cited as evidence
There has been no discernible change in global temperature (at 95% confidence) for at least the last 17 years according all data sets (RSS says the last 22 years). But there was discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for the previous 17 years according all data sets.
Discernible global warming has stopped.
But atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 362 ppmv to 395 ppmv (i.e. an increase of more than 9%) over the last 17 years.
A change in global temperature is certain to occur in future. But it is not known if that change will be a resumption of warming towards the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the initiation of cooling towards the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.
In your post I am answering, you tell Eric1skeptic that you are not a troll. Frankly, your post I am replying does not convince me of that.
Richard
johnbelljubble,
Richard Courtney has challenged you to produce scientific evidence that supports your beliefs.
I think “put up or shut up” applies here.
Good to see Smokey resurrected.
Richard
[It was a mistake. — mod.]
Welcome, Sean Chatterton! (1:54am, 10/13, 6:37am, 10/14)
You are among the ranks of the sane, here, including some real Science Giants (some for the immensity of their knowledge, others for their valiantly steadfast and enthusiastic support of Truth).
Keep posting and….
HAVE FUN!
FYI: 0n the right side of the page, see “Ric Werme’s Guide” for some posting tips. Also, here are some words (abbreviated) to not spell out to avoid auto-moderation (I have no idea what all of them are!): A-th-n-y… e-v–il… i–zll-ah-mm… h-tl-r … m-der-a-tor… f-r-au–d… M-an-n… (of COURSE the one followed the other, lol)… — that’s all I can think of. If you post a YouTube video link, sometimes it becomes a mini-movie screen with control knobs, other times, it remains an http link. Shrug.
Hope that’s helpful.
Glad you’re here!
Janice
P.S. Don’t sweat typos — if someone nitpicks, jus laguht at them1 — even the best, here, do it sometimes. Mostly, they are fun.
Hi Janice
Thanks for the welcome 🙂
Sean
All – thank you for your replies. I will indeed “put up” after I have done some further research, and will “shut up” in the meantime.
Thanks again for your time.
@ur momisugly Sean — you’re welcome!
@ur momisuglyJohn Bell(gible?)lol, well. You are to be commended for your gracious response. Do persevere in discovering the facts and data about AGW. And, don’t be a stranger!
Say… I just quickly visited your earnest, friendly, blog. Hey, if being “low (CO2, I presume) impact” on the environment is your religion or personal philosophy of life, go for it. Just do bear in mind that you are not acting on what science, i.e., real world observations, has revealed about what causes changes in Earth’s climate. No one on WUWT would, by the way, begrudge you your personal lifestyle choice and many would admire your integrity. What we (if I may speak for the others to any significant degree and I think on this I can) oppose (strongly!) is anyone imposing by state fiat their “religion” on others. There are other bloggers on this site who choose, like you, to live “environmentally friendly” lives. I think “Konrad” and “Caleb” and “A. D. Everard” and “chemman” (the last two may not be doing it by choice, I’m not sure) are some of them. And, as you may already know, our wonderful host, A-th-y is into solar panels and owns an electric car.
Enjoy your simpler lifestyle, Mr. Bell, for its own sake. Don’t adopt it mainly to “save the planet,” however, for you are depriving yourself, thus, for nothing. Of course, as I said before, if it is your religious belief, that is not “nothing” and I have nothing to say about that except: be true to what you believe in.
Welcome to WUWT!
Janice
John, I skimmed through your blog and I agree with Janice. There are meritorious reasons to live a low carbon life style. First as you would probably point out, the atmosphere is a commons and we ought to try not to fill it with CO2 regardless of the consequences. Second, living a life of savings and deferred consumption is not only good for the environment but also good for the economy (which most politicians and people like Ben Bernanke fail to understand). Third, the convergence of simplicity and productive technology (with ever-lower power consumption) is one of mankind’s greatest accomplishments.
There are also a lot of bad reasons to live a low carbon lifestyle, some of which you mention in your blog. One is “equality”. You mentioned in one post that it should not matter as human beings whether we are born in America in 1920 or Bangladesh in 2045. But it does matter. I will let you figure out why yourself.
My own life is pretty simple and last month’s electricity usage was down to 151 kWh which includes well water and a septic pump, mainly because it is fall with no heating or cooling. I removed my last abominable burned out CFL and replaced it with LED. In that there’s a small lesson. Government strongly encouraged the use of CFLs thanks in part to AGW zealots. But they turn out to have very short lifespans when the power is unreliable and that is where we are headed thanks to the same zealotry. The LED lights promise to be a lot better. But switching to CFLs which will now pollute our groundwater for centuries turned out to be a disaster.
I also unplugged my large side-by-side freezer/friidge and replaced it with a table-top fridge. I have had solar panels and batteries for incidentals (computer, internet, weather station, etc) for years. I am an engineer and designed and installed things like that myself.
Your blog posts indicate that you are a good example for the world. My advice for you is to be a good example but not a zealot.
Janice & Eric1skeptic: Thank you very much for your thoughtful words. You have made me feel welcome and for that I am very grateful. You have re-affirmed my belief in humanity.
I agree with you both – treating AGW (or skepticism for that matter) as a religion would not be the right thing to do. I remain open as always and will look at the arguments placed here objectively.
It is difficult not to appear zealotry, especially in the written word where emotional intent can often be lost or misinterpreted. I understand why some thought, may still think, that I am trolling, but I hope that feeling is dispelled, as it is truly not my intention.
As for religion, not that it is relevant, I class myself as an active agnostic – I am looking for God, but have not yet found Him, or recognized that I have.
By the way, for anyone interested, “jubble” is pronounced “jubbell”, and is a nickname from pre-school – boringly it is just “John Bell” pronounced quickly.
BTW, here’s my bill: http://shpud.com/electricbill.jpg I scanned and posted it to point out that, unlike your country, we have not (yet) chosen to intentionally force our less fortunate citizens into choosing between heating and eating. That is in contrast to your insane schemes of burning woodchips imported from America, subsidized windmills, rooftop solar, etc. Since I am an engineer with solid knowledge of power systems, I know the difference between sense and nonsense when it comes to power generation. I will never, for example, fill the grid with my power from solar at a subsidized rate when I know how unreliable and worthless it is compared to baseload power.
In contrast to my bill, your bill has green subsidies to the tune of $17 a month (about half my average bill) See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456760/Red-Eds-great-green-obsession–real-reason-YOUR-gone-roof-The-hidden-subsidies-household-pays-year-thanks-Milibands-laws.html Your bill has a much higher baseline thanks to the same poor planning and zealotry.
And yet you are actively trying make it worse. Please, think about your fellow citizens who are in fuel poverty right now.
johnbelljubble aka John Bell:
Please be assured that, of course, you are welcome here. Everybody is welcome to WUWT when they come here to present their views openly and honestly.
Unfortunately, many come here to dishonestly derail threads with intent to prevent open discussion as a method to support – or at least to prevent question of – their belief in AGW. I understood your first two posts to be indicative of such behaviour, and I said that when I concluded my post to you at October 14, 2013 at 6:47 am by writing
It pleases me that your subsequent posts have convinced me you are not a troll. So, I am now joining Janice and Eric in providing you with sincere welcome to the WUWT ‘community’.
I look forward to spirited debate between us when you have done what you call your “further research”. I think you will find great help in that “further research” is available by use of the WUWT Search facility, the Tools, and the links to both ‘pro’ and ‘con’ AGW web sites which are on the WUWT Front Page. Also, if you have difficulty in finding specific information I and others in the WUWT community will do what we can to help if you say what you seek.
I ask you to note that you are being welcomed here and challenged to present and justify your views here, and I ask you to compare that with how pro-AGW web sites treat ‘dissenters’ from their ideas.
Richard
Hey, Jubble (cute — I suppose those were the direct descendants of the same fellows who came up with the amazing pronunciation of Cholmondeley (sp?) (“Chumbly” for anyone who hasn’t read that bit of English trivia)), no, I shouldn’t call you that, I mean, Mr. Bell, thanks for responding. I am convinced (from what the Scriptures tell us) that all who sincerely seek God will find God. It’s only a matter of time. (and, in your ear, I’ll be praying for you)
**************
Eric — what a thorough, conscientious, informative, post. I enjoyed reading it. We have some very cool people on WUWT (you are one of them).
*************************************
Hi, Richard! Hope all is well. How is she?
Janice:
Thankyou for asking. All is well and she is improving better than hoped.
I trust that things are good with you, too.
Richard
Thanks Janice. I really need to contribute more here.
Anthony, why do you insist on calling this mollusk “Dr.?” If he ever had a doctorate, surely he has forfeited it by his actions. I understand your wish to maintain professional decorum, but stepping on a snail is not a breach of it.
BTW – I hold a PhD, but I do not go around announcing myself as “Dr.” Only in an academic setting would I do that.
Richard, that’s good to hear. I am well. Life is hard sometimes, but God provides. I have nothing to complain about. Thanks for asking. J.
Dr. Wozniak, I concur. #(:))
John Bell
You sound like a very even-tempered guy. I admire the way you kept your cool in the face of some puerile goading.