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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dbstealey says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:08 am
I agree that Sou is clueless.
But why give her oxygen? She craves the traffic generated here.
Disregard Sou. She is not worthy.
After visiting the site for the first time I agree completely. These “blue pill” folks choose to live in their fantasy world ignoring all real world evidence. Not worth a second glance.
The anger is likely to grow from ex-warmists who realize they have been played for fools.
And I suspect their will be plenty of contrarians ready to twist the knife once they see blood.
I think WUWT’s audience will grow.
Oops—“. . . THERE will be . . .”
Gareth you could count me in on the no human influence crowd. To clarify I am only talking about the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 causing increased AGW, not the BBQ sitting next to the temperature guage. Earth is a HUGE producer of CO2 without any modern humans taken into account. What Earth we have cleared and concreted so that nothing grows is a very tiny spot on the globe if collected together. What Earth we have cleared and planted simply replaces what Earth would have done anyway. And we used to build a fire and pretty much kept it going for every little family of people on Earth. So no I don’t think modern warming caused by the human portion of CO2 is noticed by clouds, the oceans, or our skin, being so tiny as to be buried in the width of the line used to represent the global temperature average.
We don’t yet know for sure what causes trends. Of the possibilities out there, I look for really powerful ones that are both highly variable as well as having slow turnaround times that could account for BOTH indices: long term trends and short term swings. Anthropogenic CO2 just doesn’t have the umph necessary to measurably push or pull climate quickly as well as slowly. It takes work to do that, and especially work that can be quick as well as long winded. So you need something with variable yet long winded muscle! Oceans have variable yet long winded muscle. The semi-permanent atmospheric pressure systems along with clouds have variable yet long winded muscle. We don’t and what we breath out doesn’t have any of these things. The Sun has long winded muscle but does not vary enough to account for temperature change. It just makes sense to me to look at very strong and capable sources before I spend time looking at a gnat’s ass.
The models need to be deeper in their correct performance then just the Temperature capstone. If the temperature distributions, water vapor, and other function are also not correct, then the models are flawed. A blackjack method that involves a rabbit’s foot an is right once – is not a good method.
“NO! Global warming has stopped.”
not really. You will know it has stopped when sea level stops rising.
remember. The global temperature does not exist. It’s a construct or index comprised of averaging SST ( from the first meter) and Air tempererage over land. When you combine those two you really dont have a physical metric that makes sense, you have an index of sorts that you can track historically. You’ll know the planet has stopped warming when the sea level stops rising.
REPLY: Readers take note. This is the moment that Mr. Mosher has dropped the self imposed “lukewarmer” label, and is now a full fledged “warmist”. – Anthony
JohnWho says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:27 am
BTW – doesn’t a kettle immediately begin to cool when taken off the stove? For sure, it does not get warmer.
But John, according to all the warmists the heat hasn’t been removed at all. CO2 levels have risen all this time so the burner hasn’t been “turned off”. The simple fact is that CO2 does not control the climate and this alone proves that.
Steven Mosher says:
I don’t think this is correct at all. If the temperature of the earth were to rise 5 degrees tomorrow and stay that temperature for 100 years than the sea would rise against a non moving temperature for 100 years. In fact the temperature could then drop a few degrees and the seas would rise. The sea rise will only indicate to us that the seas are currently warmer than at some point in the past. Measuring the rate of the rise would certainly be a better indicator of what the temperature is doing now.
Mr. Mosher, that is the silliest thing you have said so far. But I will use your logic from the first half of your comment, which was pretty good. The data you refer to is a sea level average across the globe. As such “you really don’t have a physical metric that makes sense, you have an index of sorts that you can track historically”.
@richard Courtney
richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:08 am
Gareth 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.
Richard says
Well, if you “don’t want get into the usual slanging match” then don’t try to pretend you are an idiot.
Gareth responds LOL !
Looks altogether conclusive that something else besides CO2 is dictating the temperature. Tragic really that the politicians of the world have given credence to this abomination of scientific misinformaion
If we need to KNOW what temperature is doing now, the only scientifically supportable way to KNOW is to measure the temperature accurately over some period of time to see whether the temperature changes; and, if so, how. However, once we begin “adjusting” the temperature measurements, we only think we know if and how the temperature is changing. There is no substitute for the proper temperature measuring instruments, properly calibrated and installed.
Old’un,
People are still obsessed with the end of the world.
Hollywood has turned out a few rare goodes about the End Of The World, but they are well hidden in the mountains of apocalyptic dreck they derivatively churn out as well. Jehovah’s witnesses dated the apocalypse to start in 1975. Hal Lindsey had the apocalypse starting in the same time frame. The climate kooks of today deny it (lol) but there was a nice heavily sourced and well footnoted apocalyptic ice age going on in the 1970’s.
Chaucer made fun of apocalyptic clap trap in “The Canterbury Tales”, cleverly contrasting naive faith and cyncial manipulation of that faith by the educated.
Nearly every mythos has a Flood story, and many have fiery end of the world stories.
AGW is a secularist’s way to indulge their need for apocalypse without dealing with any of the pesky God stuff. Instead, they have hidden heat, warming in the pipeline, storms that are just around the corner, great extinctions, ‘settled science’, all being thwarted by evil denialists who want to wreck the planet.
Ed Reid says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:08 am
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.
If this is in reply to my post of October 14, 2013 at 7:02 am, then we are in agreement and that is what I thought I was implying.
Otherwise, disregard this post. 🙂
Steven Mosher,
You are painting yourself into a non-falsifiable corner with your moving of the goal posts to slr.
You make an assertion with no backing whatsoever, which is not really like you.
You are, I hope, aware that slr has been rising for quite some time?
If the AGW signal has been impossible for the best minds and most powerful computers to discern after these many years, what can you offer to show that slr is
1- a valid proxy for climate change caused by CO2
2- when it became the important measure
3- an accurate way to measure climate change globally
4- a way tell what part of the alleged slr is due to anthropo causes
5- is doing anything unusual or dangerous
Gareth Phillips:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 8:15 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/#comment-1447570
OK. I admit I was wrong to think you were pretending 🙂
Richard
Mosher is admitting, here, that global temperature trends can only be identified with certainty decades after the fact.
But even after that happens, there will be people pointing to the tide gauges as if they mean anything at all about absolute sea level.
izen says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:10 am
There are no paleoclimate data showing any of the warming cycles since the depths of the LIA to be exceptional. The slope of the past three in the late 19th century, early & late 20th centuries is about the same, especially in the least “adjusted” data sets. The second cycle was probably also warmer than the peak of the just past one, but the CACA data minders have rewritten climate history, like the Party line-toeing commissars they are.
The long term cooling trend of the past three to five thousand years remains intact. Proxy data show that the highs of the warm periods (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern) & lows of the cold periods (Old Testament, Dark Ages, LIA) are both still declining. Less well supported, but still observable IMO is that the periods are getting shorter, ie climate is becoming more erratic as we head toward the next glacial phase. But this could also be an artifact of finer sampling closer to the present.
@ur momisugly Gareth Phillips
Your words, to me, imply a discernible anthropogenic factor, while Leonard Weinstein’s clearly do not.
I am not so sure that “most people” believe that there is a discernible anthropogenic factor and there are even less that believe there is a discernible anthropogenic CO2 factor. Of course, as always, if “most people” is 1 more than half, then maybe… 🙂
At least, that’s what I gather from reading non-CAGW information.
Certainly not worth de-railing the thread over.
Steven Mosher says:
“You will know [global warming] has stopped when sea level stops rising.”
OK.
And Envisat agrees. Global warming has stopped.
Steven Mosher says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:56 am
The rate of sea level rise has already slowed. It will fall, & dramatically, when the next glacial phase begins. Until then, it will remain in the narrow limits it has known for most of the Holocene. The orbital mechanical parameters of the Milankovitch Cycles control the onset of ice sheets, which ocean water to be drawn up onto the land.
Meanwhile, air temperature (controlled by solar & other celestial forces, plus the oceans’ own current cycles) & pressure are not the only factors in sea level. Thermal expansion of the oceans also depends upon geology, as in plate tectonics & the amount of submarine volcanism, which to some degree is modulated by orbital mechanics but primarily owes to superplume motions in the mantle.
The warming of 1977-96 was nothing at all out of the ordinary, but rather to be expected. Business as usual in the Holocene & every other interglacial phase, most if not all of which have been much warmer than our current one, using real proxy data instead of the man-made lies of GISS & HadCRU.
I remember being schooled many times that AGW caused accelerated warming through the feedbacks. That is THE reason increased levels of CO2 were supposedly so dangerous.
Every idiot who claimed accelerating warming (all of the Warmers) has decisively been proven wrong.
The new Stadium Theory predicts flat temps through 2030. If correct the IPCC will be gone by then or tasked with Anthropogenic cooling.
Steven, this is why your statement was so silly:
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html
So average sea level rise is…apparently whatever you want to say it is.
JohnWho:
I agree all you say in your post at October 14, 2013 at 8:36 am.
However, there is an important issue which needs to be a starting point; i.e. claims that global warming has “reduced” need to be refuted. This is because when it is understood that discernible global warming has stopped – and it has – then consideration of explanations of how and why it is stopped can be properly assessed.
These explanations include ideas of how and why global warming from AGW has been interrupted (e.g. Wyatt & Curry, Li et al.) and contrasted with explanations of why AGW is not a significant consideration when assessing variations in global temperature (e.g. Tisdale).
Personally, I find Tisdale’s explanation most cogent, but debate of any of these matters needs to be from a foundation of empirical reality. At least this thread has not been trolled by people making personal attacks on Bob Tisdale in the manner of the attacks on Judith Curry in the thread about her work.
Richard