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 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
———–
What Gareth Phillipps says is neither important nor honest.
Gareth Phillips: You’ve discovered that there are pros and cons to being the first to comment on a thread. Pro: Many people read the first comment. Con: Lots of people reply to the first comment.
I’m obviously with the group who side with warming “stopped”. Because it has since 2001:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/comparison-2001-start.png
Only GISS shows a little warming. Both NCDC and HADCRUT show a little cooling.
The graph is from the latest global surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/august-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/
Regards
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
As Jeremy Clarkson would say, “I went on the internet and I found this.”
I almost spritzed my keyboard with coffee with the title, so be careful:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdales-magical-cherries.html
Looking at the content of the Sou’s post, she just doesn’t have a clue. She even admits it with her “don’t know”s. Remarkable!
In his blog, gopal panicker says:
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.
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.
th Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 5:55 am you write to me
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
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
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.
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.
@ur momisugly John Who @ur momisuglyGareth 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?
@ur momisugly 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.