From the make up your freaking minds department comes this oopsy juxtaposition of alarmist messaging.
In an attempt to explain “the pause”, researchers are now grasping for explanations:
Human actions that were not intended to limit the greenhouse effect have had large effects on slowing climate change. The two world wars, the Great Depression and a 1987 international treaty on ozone-depleting chemicals put a surprising dent in the rate at which the planet warmed, says research published today in Nature Geoscience1.
Francisco Estrada, an ecological economist at the Free University in Amsterdam, and his colleagues analysed annual temperature data collected from 1850 to 2010, as well as trends in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — ozone-depleting substances that also trap heat in the atmosphere — between 1880 and 2010.
http://www.nature.com/news/ozone-hole-treaty-slowed-global-warming-1.14134
Only one problem, two years ago, we were being told cutting back on CFC’s “…helped to shield… from carbon-induced warming over the past two decades” as the CFC driven ozone hole heals:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125192016.htm
The new paper:
Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes
Abstract
The warming of the climate system is unequivocal as evidenced by an increase in global temperatures by 0.8 °C over the past century. However, the attribution of the observed warming to human activities remains less clear, particularly because of the apparent slow-down in warming since the late 1990s. Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations. We show that long-term trends in total radiative forcing and temperatures have largely been determined by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and modulated by other radiative factors. We identify a pronounced increase in the growth rates of both temperatures and radiative forcing around 1960, which marks the onset of sustained global warming. Our analyses also reveal a contribution of human interventions to two periods when global warming slowed down. Our statistical analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s. Furthermore, we identify a contribution from the two world wars and the Great Depression to the documented cooling in the mid-twentieth century, through lower carbon dioxide emissions. We conclude that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are effective in slowing the rate of warming in the short term.
==========================================================
I don’t think anybody really knows which way it is going.
Must be the latest “Hypothesis de-jour”
They did need something to explain the Antarctic ice extent increase that would blend in with the Global Climate Scare MEME
Did you know there is a Tibet ozone hole?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023496/full
Lewis P Buckingham says:
November 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Your points are well taken, however CFCs have been around since the 1890s, although of course not in the masses of the 1960s. They were used in WWII.
Clouds are now a cooling forcing? Or just the bright ones in cold places?
How long will so-called scientists do time series analysis and call it science? Can they not read their own writing. Look at the phrase “time series analysis.” See that word ‘analysis’ in there. That should tip off everyone that the technique is not science.
Time series analysis can be a wonderful thing when used by greatly experienced consultants in advising corporate planning on looming decisions. It can be very valuable. But it is not science. As in the case of models, predictions cannot be based on time series analysis. No predictions means no science.
I will ask again, since I can’t seem to find anything on this research past this article date.
What happened with this ?
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
Unfortunately, this kind of curve fitting infests science. Combined with lack of publicly available data and computer code, the average person should just assume that *anything* a scientist says, regardless of what field they’re in, is just an attempt to get grant money.
I’m not saying that’s all science is, but the situation is bad enough that this should be the default assumption.
12 Nov: SMH: Reuters: UN tweaks carbon emissions tally
The United Nation’s panel of climate experts revised estimates of historical greenhouse gas emissions, made in September, both up and down on Monday but said the errors did not affect conclusions that time was running out to limit global warming…
The panel had hoped to avoid more corrections after an embarrassing error about Himalayan ice-melt in its 2007 report.
“I don’t see it as a significant change,” IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told Reuters on the sidelines of a Nov. 11-22 meeting of almost 200 nations in Warsaw, Poland…
Among changes, the IPCC revised down the cumulative amount of carbon emitted since 1860-1881 to 515 billion tonnes from 531 billion given in September, and revised up the amount emitted since 1750 to 555 billion tonnes from 545 billion…
“Errors in the summary for policymakers were discovered by the authors of the report after its approval and acceptance by the IPCC,” it said in a statement.
It did not say how the errors had been made…
When asked if the correction would affect the credibility of the IPCC, Pachauri said, “I don’t think so.”
(Bob Ward): “Climate change ‘sceptics’ will no doubt desperately seize on these corrections and falsely allege that it undermines the whole report, but the public and policy-makers should not be fooled by such claims,” he said in a statement.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-tweaks-carbon-emissions-tally-20131112-2xd4g.html
@Rhoda R says:
November 11, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Frankly, until they can explain why the world goes into and out of ice ages AND then can show that what is going on now is unique, then, and only then, will I buy into man-made climate anything.
Applause! Well said!
@geran says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Based on the abstract, this might be the funniest paper ever submitted.
“Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations.”
Give ’em props, man: they DID, after all, try to do it WITHOUT the Great and Powerful Oz. The rest of their ilk are programming their own prejudices and liberal self-hatred into computer models and then statistically measuring their results against similar idiotic programs, and claiming that their conclusions have some basis in reality…obviously never heard the old computer term GIGO…
@Jimbo says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm
By the way Pippen Kool, how do you know the Ozone hole hasn’t always been there? The hole was discovered in 1985.
Way to GO! I’m amazed at all these folks who assume that CFCs actually caused something they only discovered a short while ago, have no idea when it first occurred, or if it had been there since the dawn of time for all they knew, and THEN have the audacity to claim that their treaty to reduce CFCs is what’s responsible for it’s reduction in size, when they have yet to prove that’s the cause!
I’m reminded of the Red Spot storm on Jupiter, in existence at least since man first saw the planet through a telescope. I’ve heard various explanations for it’s longevity, all related to fluid mechanics—i.e., wind effects. Given the circumpolar nature of wind and currents around the Antarctic, isn’t it a strong possibility that the ozone hole is an artifact of the weather, NOT CFCs? I’ve yet to hear a proven explanation of how CFCs managed to accumulate in sufficient quantities in the Southern Hemisphere to have such an effect, but truth to be told, I haven’t paid all that much attention to the arguments either way since the one side kept saying, “We need more research” (which seemed both obvious and worthless, since the only people getting research money are using it to try to prove that mankind is responsible for every natural occurrence with a dire outcome—searching for actual facts, whether they support your favorite pet conclusion or not, is just not in style, ever, it seems) and the other side kept repeating with increasing shrillness that it didn’t matter, because the answer, when found, would mean that MAN was responsible (except the enlightened few—of course! h/t to @axelwade!), and it DOUBLY didn’t matter, because even if they were completely wrong, pauperizing the world’s economy and causing people to starve and die in developing nations would be worth it because we’d be saving the earth for posterity (of the rats and cockroaches, perhaps)—thank you, Tim Wirth, a ratbag of particular virulence, and if you love the Rainforests to much, buckwheat, why doncha trade your limo and condo to some poor farmer who only wants for his children what you take for granted, and YOU can live with malaria and pestilence and short life-expectancy while looking after your precious rainforest (which doesn’t need you) and he and his can enjoy the benefits of the modern world, and we’ll ALL be much happier!
The most valid CAGW alarmist statement about the current State of Climate Research was made in Climategate 1.0, years ago…when Kevin Trenberth made his famous comment about travesty.
Some things never change…
“Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.” –Robert A. Heinlein
lots of insinuations in this “inevitable” NYT piece:
11 Nov: NYT: Typhoon in Philippines Casts Long Shadow Over U.N. Talks on Climate Treaty
By HENRY FOUNTAIN and JUSTIN GILLIS
The typhoon that struck the Philippines produced an outpouring of emotion on Monday at United Nations talks on a global climate treaty in Warsaw, where delegates were quick to suggest that a warming planet had turned the storm into a lethal monster…
Naderev Saño, the chief representative of the Philippines at the conference, said he would stop eating in solidarity with the storm victims until “a meaningful outcome is in sight.”
“What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness; the climate crisis is madness,” Mr. Saño said. “We can stop this madness right here in Warsaw.”
His declaration, coupled with the scope of the disaster, moved many of the delegates to tears.
Yet scientists remain cautious about drawing links between extreme storms like this typhoon and climate change. There is not enough data, they say, to draw conclusions about any single storm.
“Whether we’re seeing some result of climate change, we find that impossible to find out,” said Kerry A. Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at M.I.T. …
Analysts say the likeliest outcome of the Warsaw negotiations is a weak pact that essentially urges countries to do what they can to cut emissions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/world/asia/typhoon-in-philippines-casts-long-shadow-over-un-talks-on-climate-treaty.html?_r=0
Francisco Estrada, an ecological economist at the Free University…
You get what you pay for.
What pause?
I thought they didn’t believe there was a pause at all. The pause was just more skeptic mumbo jumbo.
Now not only do they accept the pause, but they have already have a reason for it.
Here in New Zealand our arrogant National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been using dubious, unpublished methods to adjust the temperature record thereby showing warming of nearly 1 deg. C over the last century (http://www.niwa.co.nz/node/82418). As your graphic of the ozone hole shows, NZ is firmly underneath this hole (at about long. 180), so, yeah I agree make up your freaking minds.
Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations.
What? No models?
I believe the standard operating procedure is now for Kevin Trenberth to have a hissy fit. To calm him down, the editor of the journal must resign while insisting that there isn’t actually anything wrong with the paper, but that climate modelers should have been consulted.
Ozone is diamagnetic (repelled by a magnet), O2 is strongly paramagnetic (attracted by a magnet) so ozone is pushed away from the pole and O2 is attracted so there will always be an ozone hole. Note the “collar” of elevated ozone around the hole, like a roll neck sweater. What will they say when the hole expands again as it surely will. Also, since all the other gases are diamagnetic there should be a nitrogen hole, carbon dioxide hole, methane hole, and noble gases holes to go along with the ozone hole. A simple test: measure the concentration of atmospheric gases above the equatorial band and compare with above the south pole (the north pole air is subject to considerable mixing because of “weather”). There never was a need for CFCs to explain the ozone (and all the other coincident) holes above the south polar area.
Re last comment: If no one wants it, I guess we could call it the Pearse effect!
The Sun is acting a little funny. Maybe that’s the real cause of the problem.
Strange Doings on the Sun
Sunspots, Which Can Harm Electronics on Earth, Are Half the Number Expected
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498
At least as far back as the 2001 IPCC TAR there were pretty well established forcing numbers for various halocarbons. Probably in the FAR and SAR as well, but I don’t have copies of those to check.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/221.htm
As far as climate effects of ozone depletion goes (a different issue than direct forcings from CFCs), the research I’ve seen has mostly focused on Antarctic temperatures.
Actually, here is a 1992 article by Ramaswamy modeling both direct CFC and indirect ozone loss climate forcings: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v355/n6363/abs/355810a0.html
yeah… given the standard explanation of ozone formation as a result of solar radiation…one would expect an ozone hole to form every antarctic winter
There are two distinct themes here that I want to separately analyze. First of all there is still an ozone hole in the Antarctic despite the Montreal Protocol that is touted as the most successful international agreement on the environment so far. In 2012 they had their twenty-fifth anniversary celebration during which they boasted that they have eliminated 98 percent of all the substances banned under the treaty. I hate to tell you guys, but the existence of the ozone hole today means that those substances were not the cause of the ozone hole in the first place and were banned for nothing. Your success in eliminating them tells me this. The Montreal Protocol is an environmental treaty based on false science and should be voided. Next, here is what your “new” paper ventures to say: “We show that long-term trends in total radiative forcing and temperatures have largely been determined by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations…” That is quite impossible because laws of physics do not permit it. We are talking here of greenhouse warming by addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Lets start by looking at temperature history from the beginning of the twentieth century. The first ten years of the century were actually cooling, not warming. Then, suddenly in 1910 warming started, kept on going for thirty years until 1940, and then equally suddenly stopped.We have good information on how the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide changed over time, The Keeling curve starts in 1958 but earlier years are also well represented from an analysis of ice cores. From this we know that there was no change in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 when the warming started. Why is this important? It tells us that this warming cannot possibly be greenhouse warming because in order to start a greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. And this did not happen. The reason for this requirement is that the IR absorbance of carbon dioxide is a property of the gas and cannot be changed. To start a warming you must add more gas molecules to air. And the way this warming ended also rules out the greenhouse effect because in order to put a stop to warming you would have to remove all the absorbing CO2 molecules from the air, an obvious impossibility. There are three other points in time where warming suddenly started and 1960 is not one of them. The first was the climb out of the deep World War II cold spell in the second part of the forties. The second was in 1976 when a short temperature increase raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees. It has been attributed to a phase change of PDO and is hence of oceanic origin. It was all over by 1980. And the last one was the step warming caused by the warm water brought over by the super El Nino of 1998. In only three years It raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. A third of a degree is almost half of the 0.8 degrees attributed to the entire twentieth century and has observable consequences.This takes care of the warming but what is even more important are the no-warming periods. Right now these is more carbon dioxide in the air than ever before but there is no warming at all. And there has not been any warming for the last 15 years. As I have pointed out elsewhere there was also an 18 year no-warming period in the eighties and nineties that was cleverly covered up by a fake warming in official temperature curves. I discovered that doing research for my book “What Warming?” and put a warning about it in the preface of the book. Nothing happened for two years but then last fall GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC decided in unison to stop showing this fake warming. What they did was to secretly align their data for that period with satellites. It required cross-Atlantic cooperation and no explanation was given to anybody. If we now add these “liberated” 18 years to the 15 years of the current standstill we get thirty three completely greenhouse-free years. Knowing this, is it possible that there might still have been some greenhouse warming that happened more than 33 years ago? I think not. We have enough observations to conclude that greenhouse warming simply does not exist. And with it dies the last hope that AGW is real.
the lead author on the paper is an ‘ecological economist’…there seems to be a lot of these ‘social science’ guys writing garbage papers on this issue
“Both world wars and the 1930 depression”. I thought it was some kind of concensus among the warmists that the CO2 did not reach levels high enough to be affecting climate until the 50:s. It is strange if the lower production or whatever before then affects downwards, if it at the same time did not affect upwards.
— Mats —
This paper is a positive event. It asserts that the science is NOT settled. It asserts there is a pause. It asserts that the IPCC GCMs do not explain the pause. And time series analysis does better than GCMs. Perhaps the time series analysis is simply picking the naturally occurring ENSO, AMO, PDO and other factors.
They sound to me like they are not sure what is happening. To listen to them, they are part of the 3%!
Cooling by CFCs may be largely confined to south of 50-60 degrees S. latitude – 6.7 to 11.7 % of the world’s surface. Meanwhile, warming by CFCs is global.
Also, there is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which affects north-south heat balance. It also affects global temperature, since the northern hemisphere north of 35 degrees N has greater surface albedo positive feedback than the southern hemisphere south of 35 degrees S. North-warming by AMO means global warming by AMO.
AMO seems to have peaked around 2005-2006 or so. I expect the Arctic to have lag of a couple to a few years, in part from the strong local positive feedback causing recycling of effects through a mechanism that has lag. However, I would have expected the Antarctic to start warming within a few years after 2005-2006 … Maybe they are having a rut of cold weather, and I have seen lots of multiyear ruts in weather.