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.
Gareth Phillips: I believe we are seeing a hiatus, it’s anybodies guess as to where it will go from here.
So we have a “hiatus” but not a “cessation in warming”. Perhaps you meant to say that there was a process generating the warming, and it was too soon to conclude that the process had been interrupted. That’s not a question of “semantics”.
jimmi_the_dalek says: “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).”
I suggest you look at their Figure 3a again, jimmi_the_dalek. There are only 1.5 AMO cycles shown. How could that mean “the AMO’s effect all cancels out over the time period of the graph (1900-2011)”?
Sorry, try again!!
Regards
Bob,
It is detrended data. The authors say so. The graph shows it. If you subtract zero the original trend is unchanged. Therefore the trend in 3b is the whole of the Hadcrut4 trend. Whatever is in 3a sums to zero. I would say they have almost 2 cycles rather than 1.5, but that does not matter – it is detrended data so it sums to zero over an integer number of cycles. They show a correlation between AMO and detrended data. Therefore they show AMO sums to zero over an integer number of cycles. Therefore the AMO is not correlated to the trend in 3b.
It would be worthwhile lowering the passions and reflecting on the big points. At risk of over-simplification, my takeaways are:
1) The IPCC report showed exponentially increasing temperatures.
2) The primary driver was/is claimed to be increasing CO2 levels.
3) The longer the ‘hiatus’ (or even downturn), the greater the gap between forecast and actual, the weaker the CO2 link becomes and the more discredited the IPCC becomes.
4) There are several alternative hypotheses to explain the profile of measured temperatures but, at this point, none are proven. Nevertheless, if they are right, time is on the side of the ‘alternativists’.
Rather than get into fights or cat-calling why not focus on what proof is needed to significantly raise the confidence level in each of the alternative hypotheses? What data, over what time would be convincing (although not necessarily proof).
These alternative scenarios are rich fields for young scientists who want to make their mark. The more discredited the existing orthodoxy becomes, the richer theses alternatives look. Let’s give them reasons to invest their time and energy looking deeper. Of course, the established ‘warmists’ will hang on for dear life to their established positions and perceived academic standing, throwing mud wherever it suits their purpose. It will be other institutions that seize the challenge.
In the meantime the financial cost of reducing CO2 will effectively sideline much of the political debate. The can will be kicked down the road: “If the hiatus is real. perhaps we should wait.”
My last though, actually wish, is for everyone to stay the scientific course. That’s what matters. For the rest, remember the old saying:
“Never wrestle with a pig, the pig likes it and you get covered in mud.”
chipsnfish: “Rather than get into fights or cat-calling why not focus on what proof is needed to significantly raise the confidence level in each of the alternative hypotheses? What data, over what time would be convincing (although not necessarily proof).”
“Let’s give them reasons to invest their time and energy looking deeper.”
There’s an implicit consideration in this. If the standard hypothesis is convincing, then it is convincing on the basis of proof or not. If not, then there is no manner in which an alternate hypothesis can be considered convincing. Even if it relies on proof and does a better predictive job than the a priori assumptions.
The second consideration has two horns. In the first, the reason to invest time and energy, as an institutional concern, is a matter of income. Like it or lump it, scientists need to eat. And for now the government pays them for research. This is self-reinforced by peer review and the statements of colleagues that are also trying to eat. But with only so many grants, if a scientists wants to eat, they must first devour their colleagues.
In the second, government pays for the research. As a matter of self-interest in that institution they will not invest money in research that does not benefit the institution. Which means any research that concludes “Don’t Panic!” will not further the interest of the institution:
“Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it.”
I have to defend Steve Mosher here, provided he is talking geologic time-scale.
I’ve long believed that decreasing sea-levels is the only hard evidence humans will ever see of a completed Holocene interglacial and the shifting back to increasing glaciation. Looks pretty obvious to me when you examine the famous Meltwater Pulse graph …
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
However I suspect he might be talking at a different, shorter time-scale, and if so, that is an error. The macro scale of tens of thousands of years is what we can likely measure, not these piddly spans of human lifetimes or individual years, months and weeks that they would have us believe are accurately quantifiable from satellites and tide gauges on huge continents that are tilting and drifting around at their leisure.
Just look at that graph. Most of the glacial melt is behind us and we are now merely bobbing and weaving around zero delta. There is a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty at play here because we are just too close or simply incapable of measuring mere millimeters accuracy for something on a planetary scale, and then giving it the correct sign (+) or (-).
Most importantly, we’re clearly in an interglacial, we’re most likely in a post-LIA, we’re in a post-1970’s warmup. So, if we could measure to perfect accuracy, then what the heck should we see?
I had to leave the party.
Pamela Gray says:
October 14, 2013 at 7:45 am
….. It just makes sense to me to look at very strong and capable sources before I spend time looking at a gnat’s ass.
+1
Gareth,
Have a beer or two and then go back and read your comments. Then consider if you really wanted to write what you have in your many comments.
Matthew R Marler says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:03 pm
“If you live long enough you will start growing shorter.”
There is high confidence (95%) among those of a certain age that the above will happen. It also seems likely (mostly confident) from 34 or 35 measurements that there is a high correlation between the loss of height and the gain in width. Because correlation does not prove causation there is much research left to be done. That will require great costs for travel, food, and beverages. I am 97% sure I can waste much money on this topic. Please send at once. Thanks.
John F. Hultquist says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Matthew R Marler says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:03 pm
“If you live long enough you will start growing shorter.”
There is high confidence (95%) among those of a certain age that the above will happen. It also seems likely (mostly confident) from 34 or 35 measurements that there is a high correlation between the loss of height and the gain in width. Because correlation does not prove causation there is much research left to be done. That will require great costs for travel, food, and beverages. I am 97% sure I can waste much money on this topic. Please send at once. Thanks.
*
Throw in a cure for balding, and you’re probably onto something.
dbstealey says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Thanks Mr. db. In fact the link I posted does use Jason data, and says as much, it just looks a little different in it’s full context as compared to the graph you linked to which wedged just a few years out of the record. Without a rationalisation for this decision one is left to speculate as to why. Also you have me confused as to whether you think sea level rise has stopped or shows “no acceleration”.
Anyway, two genuine questions on your confident assertion;
“What is observed is the recovery since the LIA”
1. What IS observed? What IS the physical cause for this warming / sea level rise we are observing?
2. “recovery”? This word by definition means a return to a normal state. What is the “normal state” for Earths climate?
I would really be interested in your elaboration as your above statement gives me no physical cause or mechanism as to why temperatures are on their way to some chimerical “normal state.”
TIA, Nick
Matthew R Marler says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:53 pm
vukcevic: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Do you have an actual model there or just a set of overlaid graphs?
Graphs are based on the observational data:
a) Sunspot number
b) geomagnetic data used in various studies by Jault Gire, LeMouel, A.Jackson, J. Bloxham, D. Gubbins, R.Hide, D. Boggs, J. Dickey, A. Pais, G. Hulot and possibly many others.
Correlation appear to be compelling, physical mechanism is a matter of conjecture.
Either you can assume that the correlation is direct consequence of magnetic fields, or alternatively that changes in the geomagnetic field and N. Atlantic tectonic activity are direct consequence movements in the Earth’s interior, whereby tectonic affects the N. Atlantic currents.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm
Correlations are a plenty, causation if any is another matter
jimmi_the_dalek says: “It is detrended data. The authors say so.”
jimmi_the_dalek, you missed my point. The illustrated detrended data only runs through 1.5 cycles. In order for you to detrend the data so that the detrended data do not impact the long-term trend, you need at least 2 complete cycles–or only one cycle. You can’t split it at 1.5.
Bob,
Though it is difficult to read exact numbers from Li et al’s graph because of its small size, it looks to me as if 3b indicates a change of about 0.8C over the last century. This is about the same as the whole Hadcrut dataset over that time, and is what you would expect if they had effectively just subtracted a purely periodic signal from the original. ie. non-integer number of periods notwithstanding, they have not significantly altered the mean trend, just smoothed it out a bit.
Why does this matter? Well, lots of people are saying that the present pause/hiatus/flattening (choose your own term) in the temperature record indicates that GW is over. However, if there is a periodic signal in the data and if the ‘pause’ is due to that component passing over a maximum , then the ‘pause’ does not indicate cooling at all. In the graphs in Li’s paper it is 3b that shows the warming signal and 3a is a periodic modifier, which is important but not a net warming trend.
So to demonstrate warming is over, you need to show that the trend in graph 3b is either spurious or temporary, and to do that it would be necessary to determine how it arises. It is not sufficient to identify periodic factors, interesting though that is for predictions over the ~decade. I do not think this is discussed enough.