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.
Richards Courtney: I’ve always wondered if the Earth adjusts Water Vapor ( A more potent GHG than CO2) to self regulate Temperature. Specifically we know that water vapor in the air will slow down the rate of cooling whilst its absence promotes rapid cooling. I’m only talking Humidity ATM.
Lastly, how accurate are the measurements to compute Earths energy and is that the only way to look at things or simply the best way?
Thanks for your time.
Since “Global Warming” is an aggregate measure, it is difficult at times to parse language when talking about it’s individual components (Sun, Water, CO2, etc) since each are trending in their own direction. Currently we may be seeing a reduction in warming from the Sun, a peak in the warming from the PDO/Water cycle, and an increase in C02 based warming (although not as much as predicted by the IPCC ECS) for a NET GLOBAL WARMING OF ZERO the last 15+ years. Note that it isn’t a “WARMING PAUSE” unless one clearly knows the algorithm for predicting and weighting each of the individual components. Short of that we are all guessing, but we should be aware of the semantics of the components versus the aggregate when having discourse. I think this is partially the case in the Gareth discussion above.
Regarding sea level, there is a new sea level satellite undergoing calibrations right now – the Saral satellite carrying the AltiKa instrument. It’s early measurements are quite a bit lower than Jason 1 and Jason 2.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/courses/sci-teams/altika-science-team/2013-saral-nrt-verification-workshop/presentations.html
Would that all men think, “Short of that we are all guessing, but we should be aware of the semantics of the components versus the aggregate when having discourse.” ;>))
Bob the answer is no.The failure of the models will not be the downfall of the IPCC.
Their other behaviours are more than enough, as Mark Twain quipped, “A lie will be halfway around the world, by the time truth gets its boots on.”
After wasting public treasure in the $trillions, kneecapping the worlds poorest people and attempting to bring the worlds economy to a halt, I feel the UN and their agency have done more than enough to bring about their own demise.
It is just a matter of time.
Bob T., Thanks
=============
“You will know it [global warming] has stopped when sea level stops rising.” S. M.
Me thinks the above is brusque to the extent it became meaningless.
Over the past several years (at WUWT and other sites) I have read of several reasons sea level might rise or fall and an additional couple of reasons why measuring sea level is quite difficult. I do know that the land/ocean interface along Oregon, Washington, and B. C. has been changing for quite some time. Awhile back there was a massive amount of ice filling the Puget Sound Lowland and the nearby ocean was about 100 meters lower. More or less the water level has been rising ever since.
Currently when the phrase “global warming” is tossed about there seems to be a background of CO2 forcing and human guilt lurking in the comment. If this reasoning is behind the above quote, then can we assume he who made it thinks the last ~17,000 years of sea level rise can be stopped by redirecting society to a non-CO2 economy?
Also, cannot Earth’s land ice melt at the current temperature?
Cannot Earth’s land ice melt at a slightly lower temperature?
Uff da!
No it is not just a matter of time. Only the right to bare arms end tyranny. Tyranny never collapses on itself nor falls on its own sword. It must be forced to capitulate by the overwhelming will and strength of the common people who have the means to back it up.
BBould:
At October 14, 2013 at 8:55 am you ask me
Firstly, nobody knows “if the Earth adjusts Water Vapor ( A more potent GHG than CO2) to self regulate Temperature”. This is because the system is extremely complex. And, sorry, but I cannot give a proper explanation of that here: it would take a book.
Please be assured that I am not being evasive. And I provide the following brief points to demonstrate why I am not able to give a proper reply.
1.
The proportions of IR emitted from water vapour molecules to space and to the surface vary with the altitude of the molecules.
2.
Then, what is meant by adjusting water vapour?
You say you are only asking about humidity, but humidity interacts with several other things to adjust the water vapour in the air.
3.
Formation of clouds is one type of adjustment. And clouds can act to amplify warming (e.g. by reducing heat loss from the surface to space at night) and reduce warming (by reflecting solar energy back to space so it does not reach the surface; i.e. an effect noticed by sunbathers when a cloud passes in front of the Sun). A change to cloud cover of only 1% would be too small to measure but could induce more global warming than is asserted to have happened since the industrial revolution.
4.
Evapouration and rainfall are also “adjustments” to water vapour. More heat leads to more evapouration which cools the surface, but this increases the amount of water vapour in the air to increase the greenhouse effect and to generate e.g. the Ramanathan&Collins Effect and also the Eschenbach Effect which are the subject of discussion on the current WUWT Spencer v Eschenbach thread.
5.
Rain dissolves CO2 from the air and transports it into the oceans.
6 to n.
etc.
All of these issues and more contribute to the variations of atmospheric humidity and their effects on global temperature.
And you also ask about “the Earth’s energy”. By this I assume you mean the Earth’s energy budget. This provides a near constant balance because the energy from the Sun and the energy to space must equal. However, the distribution of energy within the Earth’s air, land and oceans can vary to alter surface temperatures both locally and globally. This is experienced as changes to both weather and climate.
In the context of this thread I commend the writings of Bob Tisdale about how the oceans move energy. The Search facility on the front page of WUWT will provide all you could want.
Measurements of where the energy is distributed within and between the Earth’s air, land and oceans are grossly inadequate. For example, in case you have not seen it I offer this for your interest especially its Appendix B
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
I know this is not an adequate reply and probably not what you wanted. But it is the best I can do here. Sorry.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:56 am
You’ll know the planet has stopped warming when the sea level stops rising.
====
Mosh, are you aware of this paper?….a full 65% of tide gauges have shown no sea level rise at all.
Since satellites were tuned to tide gauges…where did they find the tide gauges to tune them to show sea level rise?
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf
The disconnect between theory (model) and observation in its finer parts has been obvious for a long, long time. The disconnect, however, could be explained as noise or larger-scale natural variation as well as non-representative modelling: the choice was subjective and a reflection of the pragmatic advice given by William James to choose that which pleases or supports you given equal evidence. (An ironic situation, considering the IPCC supporters wish to say their thoughts are all science driven). We may be at a point where the evidence is not equal – of course us skeptics say it has not been equal for a time – but human nature allows wiggle room even at this point.
The IPCC narrative will not go down until significant mainstream supporters question at least the likelihood of the alarming parts. They, too, have a prior position and image to defend. We have seen the German greens question the ‘warming” due to cold winters, but what is necessaary is for an American mainstream group to wonder outloud about the disconnect. That hasn’t happened yet.
Nothing is so hard to see as the mote in one’s own eye. But once one admits therre is a problem, and gets away with it, all others find it easier to admit to the same thing.
The cost of rising energy due to anti-fossil fuel lobbies is a force to be reckoned with. It brings one’s personal desire – a cheaper operating cost of his life – in conflict with his intellectual desire to live in an “Earth-friendly” way. Such a conflict is resolved when the existential threat is redetermined to be real and an imperative to action – or when the threat is downgraded. Both resolutions require an honest (sortof) reappraisal, not a reaffirmation, but a reappraisal. The reappraisal is unavoidable.
A cold winter and high heating bill this year could do it. If Britain scales back and justifies it by questioning the high-end of the IPCC fears, the Amerrican position will be isolated to a large extent. Nobody likes to be standing on the hill waving the flag all alone: there will be questions rising in the popular press in the US if that occurs.
The cracks in the story exist already. We need someone of stature to recognize his individual benefit in widening one or two close to his home. There isn’t enough intrinsic strength to keep it all together once one piece gets loose.
Pamela Gray says:
October 14, 2013 at 9:34 am
It may yet escalate from carrying barricades to manning them, with men & women bearing arms:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/13/protesters_at_vet_march_on_dc_storm_memorials_carry_barricades_to_white_house.html
As an interested kibitzer in this climate game I think I’ve finally figured out strictly from the moves that have been made, the heart of the matter, the answer to the big question: “is the ‘A’ in AGW actually there and significant, that is does it determine the direction of the trend of the temperature of the globe to the extent that the deviations from what would have been normal will affect us or our progeny (and I don’t mean just make us uncomfortably warm or cold at times)?” The answer is no (not that we won’t ever be threatened naturally). It is becoming more and more apparent that the natural climate cycles have currently overwhelmed man’s contributions to the climate (whatever they may be) and will continue to do so in the future. The known natural climate cycles (and I’m lumping everything into that from the Milankovitch cycles to the ocean oscillations) have currently stymied any contributions to warming man has made (a fact that should have been predicted and so makes me think there might be just a touch of scam in some of the accepted climate science). Then too from the Holocene optimum (what, 8-10K years or so ago) it’s been downhill temperature wise. A quick look at the series of glaciations and interglacials over the last few million years indicates that trend in this current interglacial is just going to steepen. If our puny attempts at warming the climate can’t overcome the ocean oscillations how can they possibly overcome a glaciation? We probably have a lot to fear but it isn’t warming and i doubt we can do much about it so don’t worry, be happy.
Good post Bob.
May I suggest people read more about “mode waters”. They are heated by the tropical sun, and the intense evaporation increases its salinity and density. As it is transported northward by the western boundary currents (Kuroshio and Gulf Stream) mode waters cool and sink carrying tremendous amounts of stored heat below the surface (But not as deep as Trenberth would hope). Mode waters are then capped by warm surface waters that form each spring and summer. However when surface waters cool in the fall and winter, the mode waters are warm enough to rise to the surface and ventilate the stored heat. The short window of ventilation means that ocean heat may take from 2 to 30 years to ventilate from the sub-tropical gyres, depending on location that affects recharging, mixing, etc. If the solar activity is the dominant factor heating tropical waters and recharging mode waters, Then we should expect a temperature plateau that could last for 15 to 30 year past the 90s solar max. Solar trends would then predict cooling to begin in earnest in the 2020s. The natural experiment is rapidly approaching. The IPCC’s scientific basis admits added CO2 in the tropics as a very minor effect on the greenhouse effect, so its a good bet we will see more cooling soon.
@ur momisugly Pamela Gray says:
October 14, 2013 at 9:34 am
No it is not just a matter of time. Only the right to bare arms end tyranny.
Love it! Roll your sleeves up for freedom!
One of the assumptions which I’ve not yet seen overtly discussed is whether the amplitude of a given PDO/AMO cycle can vary from cycle to cycle, just like sunspot cycles can.
I can perfectly well imagine that it could and, if it could, what’s the chance that far from a ‘hiatus’ there is actual cooling for 20 years??
Richards Courtney:
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me.
Interestingly we know the effects of water vapor on our climate or weather much better than we know the effects of CO2. Yet many scientists blame CO2 on causing warming and that measurement of warming is suspect. Fascinating!
I read the link and like your conclusion – “We conclude that the use of time-series of temperature change alone has the potential to be a strongly misleading indicator of global climate change.”
I stay away from discussions about global energy balance because I don’t understand how they compute it and if it makes any sense at all. I do understand conservation of energy at its most basic idea but do have doubts about their ability to measure it accurately.
As I said earlier if Wyatt and Curry are correct and we will have no warming until 2030 we can stick a fork in the IPCC cause they are done!
Remember what energy production has cost humanity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24506122
Today is the 100th anniversary of the dreadful mining accident at Senghenydd in South Wales. Many people with backgrounds in the mining communities of South Wales will have lost, or know someone who lost a loved one. One of the worst aspects of the whole tragedy is the way widows and children were summarily evicted from their homes after their husbands were killed. The mine owners were found at fault and fined the equivalent of 5 pence per dead miner. Is it no wonder this abuse resulted in a political movement which lasts to this day in Wales, and part of the impact of that action was our NHS and concern with the safety of workers. So at this time we remember the victims of blind profiteering at any cost and the toll energy production can take on our communities. It’s what made me a skeptic in many ways, there are many forecasts of the toll climate change will take. I have not yet heard of communities devastated by climate change, but I know many that were slaughtered by traditional energy production.
Apologies for being off topic.
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am is not only off topic: it is daft.
Everything has a downside. What matters is whether on balance something is net beneficial. Do you advocate banning the use of vehicles because thousands of people are killed in road accidents each year?
The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture.
Richard
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:38 am
This time of year in the NH I rarely bear arms with bare arms, although today might be an exception.
I think you miss the point again Richard. Always remember, it’s always better to let people think you are a fool than post a dumb response and confirm it. I know of thousands of people who died as a result of coal mining, how many do you know who have died of climate change?
@ur momisugly milodonharlani says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:26 am
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:38 am
This time of year in the NH I rarely bear arms with bare arms, although today might be an exception.
Gareth responds,
Probably does no ‘arm.
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am says in full
NO! I addressed the point you made in your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am, This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/#comment-1447721
Your long post was about coal mining deaths in South Wales and its first sentence said
and it ended saying
That penultimate sentence was the only mention of climate change and another sentence mentioned the NHS.
My answer said in total
Your response that I am answering is a clear attempt to excuse your daft and off topic post because I called you on it.
Richard
rtj1211 says: “whether the amplitude of a given PDO/AMO cycle can vary from cycle to cycle”
Tree ring studies that capture the PDO have shown that the PDO amplitude was stronger and period shorter during the 20th century, and weaker and longer during the Little Ice Age. I suspect that is a function of solar heating.
MacDonald (2005) wrote ( In Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32,) “extended periods in the 13th century and in the 17th through 18th centuries the 50 to 70 year PDO signal weakened or disappeared” and “A prolonged period of strongly negative PDO values between AD 993 and 1300 is contemporaneous with a severe medieval megadrought that is apparent in many proxy hydrologic records for the western United States and Canada.”
That strong negative PDO corresponds with the severe droughts in the American southwest that collapsed most of the native cultures.
Many reseachers suggest that solar activity modulates the frequency, writing
“The quasicentennial oscillation revealed by our reconstructed PDO dominated the PDO time series persistently before 1850. It is likely associated with the Gleissberg cycle (70–100-yr) of solar irradiance [Lohmann et al., 2004]. The Gleissberg cycle is correlated with low-frequency oscillations of temperature in the Northern Hemisphere [Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991; Oh et al., 2003; Lohmann et al., 2004]. Our identified warm and cool regimes before 1850 generally coincide with low and high solar irradiance intervals, respectively.”
Read Shen (2006) A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed from
proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33.
Steven Mosher says: “You will know it has stopped when sea level stops rising.”
Would you like to rethink that statement and try again?
Can you look at a graph of sea level, Steven, and differentiate between the contributions of thermal expansion and the mass contributions from ground water pumping and from glacial melt?
Richard, many people died in the cause of freedom, are you saying we should not remember them and the sacrifice they made to provide us with what we have today ? It is 100 years since the most devastating mining accident to hit the UK. You may sneer and mock, but some of us remember the sacrifices of our forebears. Energy production had a list of casualties like a modern day war, yes, you are right, we benefitted, but we remember and thank the Lord we don’t face the same horrors. I’d rather see a hillside covered in wind turbines than coal tips.
And Richard, when you’re in a hole, stop digging, and for Pete’s sake stop using the childish writing form of bold letters and underlines as a substitute for informed debate. Any discussion is not about who can shout the loudest or write the biggest letters.