Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?

OVERVIEW

This post illustrates what many people envision after reading scientific papers about the predicted multidecadal persistence of the hiatus period—papers like Li et al. (2013) and Wyatt and Curry (2013). See my blog post Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade.

NOTE: In addition to the above papers, see Pierre Gosselin’s post Explosive: Max Planck Institute Initial Forecast Shows 0.5°C Cooling Of North Atlantic SST By 2016!

INTRODUCTION

I published a quick post introducing Li et al (2013), Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade. The cross post at WattsUpWithThat is here. My Figures 1 and 2 are Figures 3 and 4b from Li et al. (2013). Their Figure 3 shows a multidecadal component from Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures and a relatively low warming rate in a residual—a warming rate that excludes the higher rate imposed by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since the mid-1970s. Their Figure 4b shows the Li et al. (2013) predicted cooling of Northern Hemisphere temperatures through 2027.

Figure 1

Figure 1

###

Figure 2

Figure 2

Earlier, I clearly showed in the blog post IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide that climate models can’t simulate the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans from 1880 to present, when the temperature record is broken down into four multidecadal warming and cooling (less warming) periods. The oceans cover 70% of the planet. If modelers can’t simulate sea surface temperatures, they can’t simulate global temperatures.

Von Storch, et al. (2013) stated in “Can Climate Models Explain the Recent Stagnation in Global Warming?”:

However, for the 15-year trend interval corresponding to the latest observation period 1998-2012, only 2% of the 62 CMIP5 and less than 1% of the 189 CMIP3 trend computations are as low as or lower than the observed trend.

Clearly, if 98% of the current generation of models (CMIP5), and 99% of the earlier generation of models (CMIP3), do not simulate the current hiatus period of 15 years, it’s highly unlikely they model multidecadal hiatus periods lasting 3 decades.

Additionally, in the post Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming, under the heading of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, I illustrated that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is not a forced component of climate models.

WHAT MOST PEOPLE ENVISION WHEN THEY READ PAPERS ABOUT MULTIDECADAL VARIABILITY AND THE PREDICTED PERSISTENCE OF THE HALT IN GLOBAL WARMING

Li et al. (2013) predicted Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures will cool slightly until 2027. They used HADCRUT4 data. I’ve used the same dataset in Figure 3, starting in January 1916 and running to the more current month of July 2013. Figure 3 also shows the multi-model ensemble mean of the simulations of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures from January 1916 through December 2027. The models are the CMIP5 generation, used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. (Both data and model outputs are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.) The data and model outputs have been smoothed with 121-month running-average filters. For the data-based projection, I simply spliced the smoothed data starting in January 1945 to the end of the current smoothed data.

Figure 3

Figure 3

If Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures cool through 2027 (at the same rate they had starting in 1945), the divergence between models and data will continue to grow. The reason: the modelers simply extended forward in time the high warming rate from their simulations of the late warming period. That clearly shows that the modelers did NOT consider the known multidecadal variations in surface temperatures in their projections.

Something else to consider: Li et al (2013) did not state the cessation of warming would end in 2027. Their model is only valid for 16 years into the future. After the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) switches again at some time in the future, using the Li et al (2013) model, they would then be able to predict an end to the multidecadal Northern Hemisphere cooling—and it would occur16 years after that NAO switch.

WILL THE IPCC’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS MULTIDECADAL VARIABILITY WILL BE THEIR DOWNFALL?

Let’s take this another step: Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Figure 4

CLOSING

It’s very obvious that climate modelers, under the direction of the IPCC, simply tuned their models to the high rate of warming from one half of a multidecadal “cycle” without considering the other counterbalancing or offsetting portion of the “cycle”. The IPCC’s position has been and continues to be that the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century was caused primarily by manmade greenhouse gases—a position that has always been unsupportable because climate models do not properly simulate multidecadal variability. The evidence of the model failings become more pronounced with every passing month of the halt in global warming.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Gareth Phillips

I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled. Apologies for the semantics but we need to be accurate in what we are describing.

“I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling.” A rather disengnious statement as the climate only needs to balance out to demonstrate that the globe has stopped warming and the CAGW hoax is once again exposed. Everyone on this planet is aware that everything from daily life to Planet rotation and seasons are cyclic, Everything has a cycle and yet all those, all knowing specialists, refuse to accept that the weather behaves in that fashion as well. It’s back to the drawing board for them all, to begin again.

Chris Schoneveld

Gareth Phillips, Your semantics are misleading and you are not being accurate at all, on the contrary. It is so simple. Warming means that something is getting warmer. If it stays the same temperature (cold or warm has only relative meaning) is has CEASED to warm any further.

tokyoboy

The crux, I believe, is the world-wide urbanization from late 60s to 90s.
For instance, a normal car is, while driving, equivalent to a 30-kW giant heater.
A simple calculation, based on the number of running cars and the heat capacity of air (20.8 J/mol/K), gives a temp rise of 2-3 degC for the air mass up to the height of ca. 1 km in the metropolitan area of Tokyo.
Around the year 2000 urbanization tended to saturate in many big- and medium-sized cities in the world, and hence the readings of surface-based thermometers stopped rising.

Jim Cripwell

Another paper preaching to the choir. The warmists, the Royal Society, the American
Physical Society, the WMO, AGU, etc. are not listening or taking part in SCIENTIFIC discussions. Who is going to bell the cat?

Retired Dave

Well Gareth I don’t think anyone will disagree with what you say – although 20 years ago those who used a 10 pence (UK) piece of graph paper, due to lack of an available supercomputer, and hand-sketched a continuation of the pre-existing MDO were very close to where we are now. And certainly a whole ballpark nearer than any of the models.
On top of that, while global temps remain stagnated – many parts of the northern hemisphere have seen cooling and bitter winters (we all know weather is not climate). The Central England Temperature (CET) has been going southwards for a decade now. I was talking to a farmer recently in the English Midlands who told me the growing season has slipped about 3 weeks since the millennium.
The alarmists simply mistook the upside of the MDO that occurred through the 90’s as an acceleration of warming, which it wasn’t, since it was at the same rate of warming as the 19th century upside (0.16c per decade). Their misapprehension was aided by the cooling of the Pinatubo event and the the super El Nino in the late 90’s. The recovery was steeper than the overall trend.

Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled. Apologies for the semantics but we need to be accurate in what we are describing.
____________________________________________________________________________
I’m not sure why the cessation of global warming has to be global cooling. It could as well be relatively flat temperatures. The kettle is put on a warmer and the energy is balanced.

Most accurate tracker of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can be obtained from interaction the Earth’s magnetic field with the 22 year solar Hale cycle
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
The downturn in the solar activity will inevitably mean decline in the NA SST.

johanna

Tony Brown’s work is relevant here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
Tony’s comment in a current discussion on Lorenz at Judy Curry’s is:
“We are affected by even short periods of change, be they annual or decadal. We seem to have got hung up on 30 year and century long periods of climate change and read all sorts of meanings into them. They in turn need to be put into context with the much broader picture which does tell us something which is that our overall climate is hugely variable and does not conform to the notion of a static climate until 1880 or so that has become the norm.”
(hope you don’t mind, Tony, was not sure if/when you would see this).

Ed Reid

At the risk of irritating Bob Tisdale yet again, HadCRUT4 is NOT a “dataset”; rather, it is an “adjusted” temperature anomaly record. The work Anthony and others have done suggests that up to half of that anomaly might exist only in the adjustments and not in the underlying data.
The TEAM refers to these temperature anomaly records as “datasets” in an effort to suggest that they are real data. We adopt their sloppy redefinition of data at our peril.

richardscourtney

johanna:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 4:34 am.
With respect to both you and tonyb, in my opinion it does not matter if he objects to your quoting and citing his work because his work is so good and so important that it needs to be quoted and cited often.
Richard

izen

The hypothesis that there are multi-decade ocean cycles that have a well defined time period and magnitude is one that has yet to be confirmed by objective data. li et al certainly failed to confirm that the AMO they are referencing has a ~60 year period or a predictable amplitude. You can not derive a cycle from less than two peaks of its supposed period.
What limited cycles that are detectable show a consistent pattern. The shorter the cycle the greater the climate variation, the longer it is the smaller the observable anomaly. The ENSO cycle is inherently unpredictable in frequency and magnitude, but causes the largest variations within a few years or less. The Longer cycles that have been proposed, but rarely confirmed, all have much smaller ranges of variation.
There is no paleoclimate evidence that these purported cycles are anything other than energy neutral over a few years.
In fact for any supposed cycles of several decades it is necessary to rely on the same paleoclimate evidence that shows that recent warming is exceptional in the last 8000 years and confirms that these assumed ‘cycles’ are climate neutral in their purported effect over that period and have not caused any similar excursions in the past.

Bruce Cobb

The ipcc models, not being based on reality can only predict warming. The Global Warming Halt of now nearly 17 years has effectively broken the models already, which is why they are grasping at straws like “hidden heat”. For now, multidecadal variations can certainly take the credit for the ipcc’s downfall. In the future, though, more credit may be given to the sun.

Gareth Phillips

Chris Schoneveld says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:05 am
Gareth Phillips, Your semantics are misleading and you are not being accurate at all, on the contrary. It is so simple. Warming means that something is getting warmer. If it stays the same temperature (cold or warm has only relative meaning) is has CEASED to warm any further.
I agree Chris, like most things, it is semantics, but I do not intend to mislead. Imagine a car speeding up to 70 miles an hour on the M1 pushed by a powerful motor. Now if the motor stops and the car is free wheeling for a for while at 70 miles and hour, is it still speeding, although it is no longer being powered? The temps may not be rising at the previous rates, but make no mistake, they remain raised and we do not know whether they will fall back or whether the previous rate of increase will resume. Like the car, they may wind down or the engine may kick back in, but the car has certainly not stopped as yet.

Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?
Posted by Bob Tisdale

– – – – – – – –
Bob Tisdale,
Another great set-up for stimulating discussion. Thank you once again.
The IPCC is a locus for model discussion, certainly. And they are not appearing rational in handling their failed model approaches. You have shown that.
If one can answer whether the IPCC will fall by failed models then I think one needs go to look at other loci of climate discussion. Let’s pick one => the upcoming 2013 Annual AGU Fall meeting in San Francisco in Dec.
Go to the AGU Meeting webpage, non-members can browse around to some extent. I see little evidence of diminished emphasis on the IPCC centric model approach when compared to previous fall meetings.
But, what I do see as different is a growing frantic undercurrent about US Federal Government’s significant sequestration of research funds. Models may be singled out as the lowest kind of priority to fund.
I suggest, to answer your question, to look at other scientific academies, institutes, societies and associations. Are they finally trying to correct the IPCC’s science?
My understanding of cultural change is the IPCC cannot fall except by the hands of those academies, institutes, societies and associations. And further, they will change only through a skeptical dominance of their members.
Bob, your work is laying important groundwork. Lots of work left to do
John

LearDog

It’s not that they failed to model the PDO and AMO – it’s that they didn’t think them important. Natural processes that were “noise”.

Leonard Weinstein

Gareth Phillips says:
You make the assumption that normal is less warm than present. Since most of the Holocene was as warm or warmer than present, and we clearly had a cold period about 1300 to 1850, why do you assume the present is unusual rather than just a recovery from the LIA back to normal? The fact is that either the warming was a recovery from whatever caused the LIA, or if there is AGW, it is relatively small and is sitting on top of a larger natural variation that dominates the climate. Either case argues against their being a CAGW.

hunter

The AGW movement is in a similar place to 1st Century Christians. They were told Jesus was returning right away, that those living would see Him return in an Apocalypse. The Church grew out of that, to explain why He did not return as previously promised.
AGW true believers have to develop a way to at once continue their moral pose regarding “decarbonization” and still explain away the fact that their predictions are useless, their facts tainted or worse, and their remedies don’t do more than make AGW insiders wealthy.

richardscourtney

Gareth Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 5:21 am you continue your disingenuous semantics when you write

The temps may not be rising at the previous rates, but make no mistake, they remain raised and we do not know whether they will fall back or whether the previous rate of increase will resume.

NO! Global warming has stopped.
Your assertion that “temps may not be rising at the previous rates” is a false statement of lack of confidence.
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.
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.
Richard

tom0mason

It is yet another cold day for the believers in CAGW, as the natural swings of nature takes its inevitable course, the number of skeptics will be passed the tipping point, and the doom-mongers will be consigned to an embarrassment of history.

Gareth Phillips

I don’t want get into the usual slanging match with you Richard so I won’t use any bold type or block capitals. You are correct that the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop, but we remain at that temperature, there is a difference in these two statements. The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records. Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance. Certainty bounding on zealtotry is the bane of climate science on all sides. I believe we are seeing a hiatus, it’s anybodies guess as to where it will go from here.

Gareth Phillips

Correction, that should be Zealotry in my last post, cursed MacBook auto corrects!

SSTs are the best metric for global climate. There has been no net warming since 1997 and the earth entered a cooling trend in about 2003 ( See Fig 7 at the latest post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com ) which will likely last for 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that.
Check the basic data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The link to my site also provides a forecast for the timing and extent of the coming cooling.

Bruce Cobb

@Gareth, The fact that the warming has stopped the past 17 years is in no way incongruent with the fact that temps remain (so far) at a somewhat elevated level. Either you are being disingenuous, or are incredibly dense not to see that. Furthermore, the fact that warming has stopped does not in any way make a claim as to what direction future temperatures will take. Calling it a “hiatus” or “pause”, on the other hand, implies future warming. Semantics indeed.

Aaargh! @Gareth Phillips when, at October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am he says:
I’m really not sure we can say there is a cessation in global warming until we see some significant cooling. At present there is a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant, but we are still in a situation where the climate has warmed and remains warmed, so it’s difficult to describe that as a cessation any more than a kettle remaining hot when taken off the stove remains in a warmed condition until it has cooled. Apologies for the semantics but we need to be accurate in what we are describing.
The warming has stopped, at least when measured by the same data sets that showed warming.
We all seem to agree that what will happen next (other than continued statistically similar levels) is either more warming or some cooling. It seems we all also recognize that we don’t know what the “normal” global temperature should be, making it difficult to state whether we really are in either a relatively cool or warm scenario.
BTW – doesn’t a kettle immediately begin to cool when taken off the stove? For sure, it does not get warmer.

Pamela Gray

Could it be that even with an eye in the sky, real cloud data is inaccurate (see below)? It appears that way. If that is the case, modeled cloud effects are WAGS because the observation data is possibly compromised. Apparently sensors have a hard time knowing the difference between these ghostly apparitions. Bob can you help me make sense of this website?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/Peru/Peru_MODIS.html

gopal panicker

http://www.stuffintheair.com/lead-us-from-darkness-to-light-from-global-warming-to-global-cooling-by-gopal-panicker.html check it out if you care…its an excerpt from an article i wrote three years ago..predicting global cooling…right on the money so far

Ron Hansen

Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
———–
What Gareth Phillipps says is neither important nor honest.

Pamela Gray

Gareth, it takes quite a while for a pond to release heat. Now consider the oceans. If previous conditions allowed equatorial cloudless skies thus deep IR penetration, relatively speaking, the recharged oceans would take quite a long while in releasing that heat. Oceans do not turn on a dime.

Richard M

We sometimes get caught up in the lack of warming and showing how long it has been. But that often hides the real situation. From a trend perspective the Earth warmed until about 2005 and has since been cooling. The cooling has cancelled out some of the previous warming which is why we have the long flat trend. But, make no mistake, the warming has stopped and we are now cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend

Latitude

The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records
====
nope…..a short temporary uptic….and the overall trend is still down
Gareth, temps stopped at the one exact point where CO2 levels should have had the most effect
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

rogerknights

WILL THE IPCC’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS MULTIDECADAL VARIABILITY WILL BE THEIR DOWNFALL?

Typo–delete the 2nd “WILL”
[Thank you. Mod]

“Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?”
If the foundation of the IPCC was scientifically based, my answer, based on this and all the problems with the IPCC reports, would probably be “yes”, but since the IPCC is political agenda based, the answer is “no”.

Gareth you are repeating the Alarmist mantra about the last 10 years being the warmest. When you cross a mountain peak ( about 2003) the last 5 steps up and the first 5 down will be the 10 highest. After 10 years of cooling since 2003 you can in fact say that the last 20 years were the highest in centuries and by 2023 you will say no doubt that the last 40 years were the highest.

eyesonu

Whether the temp is cooling or staying the same over the past 10 or 15 or 20 years the sermons from “the team” and for “the cause” were absolutely confident that it would continue to increase in both the level and rate in line with atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 continues to climb but the temp remains the same.
It seems that the only rate of increase is that of the sinking of the CAGW and the rate of growth of plants.

Bob Tisdale says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:38 am
> Gareth Phillips: You’ve discovered that there are pros and cons to being the first to comment on a thread.
Oh, I missed it. Sigh.
It seems to me that there are three possibilities:
1) it gets warmer (then we can say warming resumes)
2) it gets cooler (then we can say global cooling has returned)
3) it can stay the same (then the deniers can point out the climate really isn’t changing).
I don’t think I’d ever say there’s “a hiatus in the rate of warming which may or may not be significant” in mixed company.

Old'un

HUNTER at 5.33am
A valid analogy. In Biblical times people were obsessed with the possibility of the World ‘ending’, and the proposition that Jesus would return as a Messiah to save believers when it did end, turned an outlying Jewish sect into a worldwide faith.
Homo Sapiens are still heavily prone to be attracted to ‘end of the world’ theories, hence the success of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, which now has all the makings of a worldwide faith.
Whilst some followers may be persuaded to leave the ‘faith’ by the growing body of scientific evidence that a catastrophe is not on the cards, It will require a Constantinian act of will for World leaders to admit that they have been worshiping a false god and this will not IMHO happen inside a decade. Meanwhile much havoc will sadly have been wrought.

In his blog, gopal panicker says:

Satellite photographs are available on the internet for everyone to see. THIS SO CALLED GLOBAL WARMING IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITIES. THERE IS A NATURAL TENDENCY TO OVERESTIMATE OUR IMPORTANCE. IN COSMIC TERMS WE ARE JUST LIKE LITTLE MICROBES ON THE SURFACE OF A LITTLE SPECK IN THE UNIVERSE. ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
That said it does not mean that we should feel free to cut down all the forests, and rape and pillage the earth. This planet is our home and we should be good custodians so that future generations will have a nice place to live in.
THE END.

I could not agree more.

Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:55 am
I don’t want get into the usual slanging match with you Richard so I won’t use any bold type or block capitals. You are correct that the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop, but we remain at that temperature, there is a difference in these two statements. The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records. Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance.

bold mine
Who you calling “most people”, Gareth?
Leonard Weinstein did not say there is an anthropogenic factor, he said “or if there is AGW, it is relatively small and is sitting on top of a larger natural variation that dominates the climate.”
bold mine, again
Funny how you left out that little word – “if”.
I do not agree that it is a healthy stance to assume there is an anthropogenic factor within the global temperature other than to accept that it is “relatively small” and possibly not discernible with our current instrumentation.

Gareth Phillips

Thanks Bob and everyone else who responded to my first post ( you are right Bob, it’s a perilous place to be!) Setting aside the hiatus or whatever you wish to call it, I suspect that as the science develops all sides are likely to draw closer together on what are the significance and implications of climate change. The IPCC may not disappear , but it will change and evolve. Hopefully the only ones who will fade away are the zealots and Mr.Angry’s on both sides. After blogging on climate change discussion zones for almost 11 years it seems to me that people are tending to agree on more and more issues, or as my ever sharp wife describes it “DAFT” ( Drawing all factors together.

Bob Tisdale,
I agree that Sou is clueless.
But why give her oxygen? She craves the traffic generated here.
Disregard Sou. She is not worthy.

richardscourtney

th Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 5:55 am you write to me

I don’t want get into the usual slanging match with you Richard so I won’t use any bold type or block capitals. You are correct that the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop, but we remain at that temperature, there is a difference in these two statements. The rate has of warming has stopped, but we remain at an elevated temperature compared with recent records.

Well, if you “don’t want get into the usual slanging match” then don’t try to pretend you are an idiot.
As I explained, discernible global warming has stopped. That is NOT the same as “the rate of warming has pretty well slowed to a stop”.
And, of course, the present decade is higher that its predecessors when the previous decades included warming. The important point is that the present decade does not include warming because the warming has STOPPED.
This cessation of global warming is – of itself – sufficient to disprove the assertions of AGW that were promulgatred in the IPCC AR4.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
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.
Richard

Ed Reid

Temperature and temperature change are “discernable with our current instrumentation”. Any anthropogenic contribution to that temperature or temperature change is not amenable to instrumental measurement.

richardscourtney

Sorry, in my previous post ‘Gareth Phillips’ became truncated to ‘th Phillips’ for some reason.
I apologise for this. It was inadvertent and not intended as an insult.
Richard

“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably..”
(Tom Nelson, Climategate files)
Tar and feather would do.

Gareth Phillips

@ John Who @Gareth Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance.
bold mine
Who you calling “most people”, Gareth?
Leonard Weinstein did not say there is an anthropogenic factor, he said “or if there is AGW, it is relatively small and is sitting on top of a larger natural variation that dominates the climate.”
bold mine, again
The words after the comma are mine, The statement should read Leonard Weinstein(above) has a reasonable point in stating that we cannot be entirely sure whether the current situation is a normal rebound from the LIA, ( this where my words start)………. or whether as most people have it, that there is an anthropogenic factor. I’m not certain, and I think that is a healthy stance.
I do not attribute all of the posting to Leonard, my words start with the word ‘or’. It’s a reasonably well known grammatical sentence structure. You ask ‘Who are most people who believe there is an anthropogenic factor in climate change”? Well I suppose we could start with Anthony. There may be people who feel that there is no human influence on climate at all, but I don’t believe that is a common philosophy. The 64 dollar question is how influential that factor is, is it minimal or major, a combination of factors or an unknown?

Gareth Phillips

@ richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:12 am
Sorry, in my previous post ‘Gareth Phillips’ became truncated to ‘th Phillips’ for some reason.
I apologise for this. It was inadvertent and not intended as an insult.
Richard
No problem Richard, my own typing is pretty grim at times.