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 8:38 am
What is wrong with using more up to date data dbstealey?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
And as for “Global Warming has stoppped” I’ll let Dr Spencer comment on that…
“I would remind folks that the NASA AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has actually measured the small decrease in IR emission in the infrared bands affected by CO2 absorption, which they use to “retrieve” CO2 concentration from the data. Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of. Conservation of energy, folks. It’s the law.”
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Every technology comes at a cost. Of course mine safety is vitally important, as is insulating power transmission lines to prevent electrocutions.
But humanity is more numerous, longer-lived, more comfortable, richer, healthier & safer, among other benefits, in 2013 than 1613 (~500,000,000 people), 1713, 1813 or 1913 thanks to fossil fuels. It’s presently impossible to sustain seven billion humans without hydrocarbons & their products.
Nick Kermode,
Thank you for that graph. It shows conclusively that there has been no acceleration of sea level rise. What is observed is the recovery since the LIA. There is no human fingerprint shown.
Further, I prefer to rely on Envisat and Jason, direct satellite measurements of sea level. It is more honest data than anything else.
Regarding the fact that global warming has stopped, empirical evidence supports that fact.
Finally, your Spencer quote says nothing about AGW. Global warming has stopped. Deal with that fact.
Gareth Phillips:
You have earned my ire with your insane drivel at October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm. It says in total
Firstly, in the days when the UK had a coal industry I was elected as the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management in five successive elections. I and my colleagues successfully worked to transform the UK’s coal mining industry from a death trap into being the safest mining (yes, mining not only coal mining) industry in the world. Your suggestion that I don’t care about coal mining deaths is an outrage!
And even by your standards it is stupid and ignorant beyond belief to suggest that bird swatters can replace power stations. Read this and – in the unlikely circumstance that you can – learn
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Importantly, you are the one who needs to “stop digging”. A cogent discussion does not consist – as you seem to think – of being a competition to provide the most stupid, offensive and ignorant blather.
Richard
milodonharlani says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Every technology comes at a cost. Of course mine safety is vitally important, as is insulating power transmission lines to prevent electrocutions.
But humanity is more numerous, longer-lived, more comfortable, richer, healthier & safer, among other benefits, in 2013 than 1613 (~500,000,000 people), 1713, 1813 or 1913 thanks to fossil fuels. It’s presently impossible to sustain seven billion humans without hydrocarbons & their products.
I fully agree, my post was basically to honour the 470 men and boys who gave their lives to provide us with that resource 100 years ago today. Apologies for for causing the deviation in the thread, lets get back to that topic of sea level rise and IPCC validity. Cheers G.
Richard, I did not say Wind turbines could replace conventional energy sources, I said I preferred them to coal tips on our hillsides. Read it again. Well done on improving the safety of mine workers, I salute you. But that still does not mean that those hundreds on men and boys who died in the UK worst mining accident 100 years ago today don’t deserve to be remembered for their sacrifice. So lets move back to the thread, but before we do,maybe as as a past Mine manager you could join me in saluting them and the countless others who died? And chill out, when you get angry it’s not just your formatting you lose! 🙂
Gareth Phillips:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm
I was not a Mine Manager. I was the Senior Materials Scientist and I was employed at the Coal Research Establishment. Despite that, the Mine Managers repeatedly elected me to represent them as the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management.
You say
As an excuse that fails. Dig the coal from a deep mine and you get waste from the mine which can be landscaped, and you get useful energy and power at low cost. Build the wind turbines and you get high costs, you cover the landscape in concrete for the turbines’ foundations and the roads to access them, you get disruption to the electricity grid, and you get higher fuel consumption and more emissions from power generation, but you get nothing else.
Of course I regret and remember all who died to get the energy we needed for our modern civilisation. Your suggestion that I don’t is a disgraceful and unfounded insult for which you have not apologised.
As I said,
Richard
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am
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?
===================================================
How about all the children that have died world wide of dysentery and other things caused by not having clean drinking water. The monies that have been wasted on so called “clean energy” over the last 17 years. could have easily provided clean water for them all. They died from “climate change”.
Oh that’s right. They died of alarmist’s stupidity.
Gareth: “Imagine a car speeding up to 70 miles an hour …. 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? ”
Only if the speed limit if 55 mph. ‘Speeding up’ and ‘speeding’ are two different things, and this is a textbook example of fallacy arising from equivocation. Stating at as ‘speeding along’ would have made no difference at all in this instance either. As only is speaking about a positive change in velocity over time, the other about a velocity in excess of a threshold, and the last about having a velocity.
No difference here in ‘warming’ as the theory, ‘warming’ as a increase in temperature over time. And ‘warming’ when including zero as an ‘increase.’ Though if an absence of increase is an increase, then a change the wrong way is the same as a change the right way. And we better get the vapors back on about the coming Ice Age.
“Remember what energy production has cost humanity.”
It has cost our to be unperturbed by gushing Apple fanbois talking loudly on their iPhones. It has cost us the studied use of language by cramped writing with a quill pen, as now everyone that shouldn’t speak types volumes into the comments of blogs. There is care that needs to be taken with statements based on generalizations. It’s essentially an “All swans are white” problem.
“Every black I know is a criminal” therefore “All blacks are criminals.” This is the precise generalization we use noramally and unobjectionably. Even, and especially, in science. The generalization is justified not because it is ‘True as Fact’ but because we are unaware of any counterfactuals. This is a bog standard inductive statement.
“75% of the blacks I know are criminals” therefore “Blacks are criminals.” Counterfactuals exist and so we drop the ‘all’ but retain the generalization as justifed by being a supermajority consideration. It need not be true as such, but we will have good success at prediction. It *is* stereotyping and it is so because the counterfactuals exist. But it is considered appropriate and useful.
“52% of the black I know are criminals” therefore “Black are criminals.” This is absolutely no different than the last. There is a moral dimension that here, due the subject, people will get up in arms about. But the Casino wins Blackjack 52% of the time. And people do not question the generalization “The House wins at Blackjack.” It is still a stereotype. And it is still appropriate. But in this condition, unless we are justifying the long term result of many bets, it is generally unacceptable.
“9% of the blacks in America are criminals” therefore “Blacks are criminals.” (9% being pulled from memory about lifetime conviction rates for African-Americans, but I have not double checked it.) Obviously you aren’t going to win any bets on this one. It is, more often than not, the express meaning behind ‘bigotry.’ But if you are taking risk-weighted bets, such as an actuary calculates for insurance policy rates, then they will have a different notion of things. That is, the costs and payouts are not symmetric. And given that, what counts as a ‘breakeven’ for a bet is no longer that 50/50 percentage rate.
It just change the odds of a winning or losing bet, for or against either position. But it changes the consequences from winning and losing bets. Such that, as a generalization of the consequentialist analysis, the stereotype is justified for use as a rule-of-thumb. This is the same sort of reasoning behind Jesse Jackson’s infamous quote about being relieved that blacks weren’t walking behind him at night.
But the generalization itself is not only counterfactual, it is not supported statistically. It can only be justified on the basis of the risk-weighting that underlies the construction of the generalization. And if you don’t know it, or cannot provide it, then it’s quite likely you picked it up from someone else. But did you pick up a good rule of thumb? Or did you infect yourself with mindless bigotry?
This consequentialist reasoning underlies the statements about Jesse Jackson and black pedestians, of the human cost of Coal Mines, and the Economic and Social costs of AGW. Quite specifically, this consequentialist reasoning is employed to justify ‘truthiness’ or ‘false but accurate’ statements. Where false evidence is used as a parable about the generalization, and as support for it. This is the manner in which the AGW climate models are used. They’re wrong, but if they were right, we should be terrified. And since we should be terrified, we should do something about coal mines. And since coal miners are black, you should be relieved when a coal miner isn’t walking behind you.
If the consequentialist generilzation is applied outside its boundaries, or used to justify anything other than a rule of thumb, it all goes off the rails immediately.
Gareth, too funny! Do we bear up or bare up? Its or it’s? Knit, nit, or gnat, nat? Actually, I prefer shooting with bare arms but sleeves when bearing them.
Anthony, is anyone else having problems loading the “Like this” thingys?…..
at over a hundred posts….it takes a while for me
…just checking!
Hi Pam, we bear up if we are being brave, or we bear arms if we are armed or we bare arms if we roll our sleeves up, bur we are bear wary if we are in the woods. Please bear with me, it all makes sense!
Way back earlier in this thread:
“Ron Hansen says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:32 am
Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:23 am
———–
What Gareth Phillipps says is neither important nor honest. “
Perhaps this is true, Ron, but even so, should we let some of his statements stand and allow them to mislead others?
For example:
“Gareth Phillips says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am
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?”
If we are talking about the recent “Climate Change” – warming since the end of the Little Ice Age – then doesn’t this fact apply:
more people die each year from the cold than do from heat.
Therefore, I put forth that more people are still alive due to “climate change” than have died from it.
Are these people who want to stop this “climate change” to be considered heartless supporters of a process that, if it does what they claim it will, would increase the number of people who die each year from the cold?
Richard, did you not say in response to my post on these miners “Your post at October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am is not only off topic: it is daft.” You are condemned by your own words I’m afraid. And if you really think coal tips are more damaging to the countryside than wind turbines, well we just have to differ and put that down to our aesthetic differences, but you know, I never saw a windmill slide down a hill and kill hundreds of children. I was there Richard. I heard the tip sliding, luckily I was in a different school in the next village. Glad to hear you remember the the men of Senghenydd, albeit with a little prompting. Lets leave it at that.
Jquip, I enjoyed your post, hopeful we don’t ever use the racist generalisations you quote. By why did you spoil and interesting post by stating after some good analysis “But did you pick up a good rule of thumb? Or did you infect yourself with mindless bigotry?” What was the point of that? What did it achieve? I must admit I also lost your thread a bit when you said “And since coal miners are black, you should be relieved when a coal miner isn’t walking behind you” They are generally not black in Wales ( except when coming off shift), in fact we don’t have miners at all anymore. I think you are talking about extrapolating situations to generalised cautions and catastrophisation of all situations? If so it’s something I worked with in my clinical role through the medium of CBT and Becks approaches to black and white thinking. You may be interested in automatic thoughts if negative and pathological generalisations of random situations are an area of interest.
Gareth Phillips:
re your post at October 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm.
NO! I will NOT “leave it like that”.
You have not revoked and not apologised for your offensive and grievous untrue insult. Indeed, you have added to it.
Clearly, you are a nasty little troll, and I will continue to remember your behaviour until you retract and apologise because it tells all that needs to be known about your reasons for posting on WUWT.
Richard
Gareth: “And if you really think coal tips are more damaging to the countryside than wind turbines, well we just have to differ and put that down to our aesthetic differences, ”
So quite rather than ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ it is ‘The Mona Lisa damages the Louvre.’ And therefore we should ban the products of DaVinci.
“I never saw a windmill slide down a hill and kill hundreds of children.”
I’ve never seen a coal tip kill anyone. Or a windwill. But I have seen people die from old age. We should really do something about that. In fact, I’ve seen people die from the birth process. There ought to be a law.
Come to think, life is fatal. You aren’t getting out of it alive. The only proper thing to do is set up a UN body to make policy recommendations for how to prevent life from occurring.
A bit of clarity would help your thinking, G.
Gareth: “What was the point of that? What did it achieve? ”
It’s encouragement to have a Socratic dialogue with yourself. What do you know and how do you know it?
“They are generally not black in Wales… ”
I hardly doubt it. Which is part of the point. They are generally black in other elsewheres. But in other elsewheres there generally aren’t coal tips, windmills, long term warming trends, or even just blacks. Generalizations are general and dependent quite a bit on context. And consequentialist generalizations are just a further extension. They have utility where they do, but in extrapolating them to universality, all manner of hazards occur.
@Quip
Jquip says:
October 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Gareth: “And if you really think coal tips are more damaging to the countryside than wind turbines, well we just have to differ and put that down to our aesthetic differences, ”
So quite rather than ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ it is ‘The Mona Lisa damages the Louvre.’ And therefore we should ban the products of DaVinci.
“I never saw a windmill slide down a hill and kill hundreds of children.”
I’ve never seen a coal tip kill anyone. Or a windwill. But I have seen people die from old age. We should really do something about that. In fact, I’ve seen people die from the birth process. There ought to be a law.Come to think, life is fatal. You aren’t getting out of it alive. The only proper thing to do is set up a UN body to make policy recommendations for how to prevent life from occurring.
A bit of clarity would help your thinking, G.
Hi quip, can I recommend this study if you wish to indulge in psychobabble or contradictory dissonance? You may find it especially useful, it addresses many of the points you raise. Have fun. It’s a good primer. http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY2001/globwarm.pdf Otherwise your posting does not make sense (I’ve never seen someone murdered, but I don’t think that justifies it’s legalisation). Look up the concepts of straw men, it may give you some insight into the nature of your argument.
Good night Richard, don’t forget your medication. I have a long meeting in London tomorrow so I have to call a halt . Thanks by the way for your true illustration of how a troll behaves. Can I use it in my lectures ? By the way until you find the next person to rant and rave at in order to project your unresolved anger in inappropriate directions can I recommend this light reading? It may help, as long you try and relax and stop being a one man nuclear detonation of anger at any imagined slight or anyone who does not fit exactly with your view of the world. Here’s the paper . Nos Da.
http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY2001/globwarm.pdf
ps. I’ve really tried hard, but think it’s best not to debate with you in future, I’m sure you’ll understand. Just enter my name in your big book of bastards I have met on WUWT.
This article says
” 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. ”
However Figure 3a has a zero trend. They state that they use a detrended temperature record. If you subtract zero from something then it is unchanged, so Figure 3b is the total trend from Hadcrut4, just smoothed a bit by removing the oscillation. You can see that 3b is (nearly) the total rise just by going at looking at the Hadcrut4 data <a href=http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1900/mean:12/to:2011/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1900/to:2011/mean:12/trend
Their graph 3a shows a correlation between AMO and that part of the NH temperature record that does not have a rising trend i.e. the AMO’s effect all cancels out over the time period of the graph (1900-2011).
Gareth Phillips:
At October 14, 2013 at 2:55 pm you again refuse to withdraw your grossly offensive smear and conclude saying
Indeed I do “understand”. You are incapable of rational debate.
Also, I do not have such a book and if I did you would not be in it. You are a nasty and particularly slimey troll who is nowhere near deserving the respect afforded to “bastards”.
Richard
Gareth: “Look up the concepts of straw men, it may give you some insight into the nature of your argument”
One of the notions of a rebuttal is that when you rebut a point, you argue for why the point fails. Name-dropping fallacies does not suffice on its own. This is a broad and general notion and why why, for example, dueling Dunning-Kruger’s are entertaining. Without an argument as to the validity of an accusation of a Dunning-Kruger, the accuser is then justifiably counter-accused for violating Dunning-Kruger. And so the entire content of both arguments is. “No, you’re the cocky idiot.”
If the original form of argument was valid, then so to is the counter-accusation. So either the structure was valid, and they are both proven to be cocky idiots. Or the structure was invalid and the original accusation cannot be carried. Though, by humor of the context here, that proves the counter-accusation. For if the accuser was not a cocky idiot, they wouldn’t have made such a basic mistake of argument in the first place.
In particular here: To be a straw man I must be addressing the content of your arguments, restating in a manner that you did not conclude, and then argue against the conclusions you never reached. But then I am not speaking to the content of your arguments, I am speaking only to the structure of them. For if the structure is valid, then you must hold that it is valid for everyone to use the same structure.
So it would be of a great convenience if you understood the topic being discussed. And that you actually discussed the topic rather than some other topic entirely. Though, following your form, I could have simply cut it short by accusing you of a Red Herring, or any other variant of Ignoratio Elenchi, and recommended you read any basic text on reasoning.
vukcevic: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Do you have an actual model there or just a set of overlaid graphs?
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.
I think that a cessation in global warming can be established if there is a sufficiently long period during which the temperature does not rise. With a pot on a stove, the temperature will rise until the heat loss from the sides of the pot and from the top of the water match the heat input, and then there will be a cessation in further warming.
Your “semantic point” that “cessation of warming” has to entail “cooling” is at best idiosyncratic, since they are clearly distinguishable. Perhaps you won’t be convinced that warming has ceased until there is demonstrable cooling, but that is not a necessary part of any definition.
If you live long enough you will start growing shorter. However, there was a cessation in the growth of you stature at about age 20-25, and you do not have to wait until you start getting shorter to find your maximum height.
And so on. The cessation of a process does not require a retrograde movement to define or mark it.