WUWT reader Steve Hales writes in Tips and Notes:
Thought you might get a chuckle out of my letter to our local bucolic paper.
Story from The Chronicle-Independent
“Whatever the cause of climate change – and there are healthy debates going on about that on a regular basis – one thing can’t be denied: the planet is heating up at an alarming rate. Worldwide, it was the warmest November on record, and so far this year, we are tied with 2002 as the fourth-warmest year on record. Last month was the 345th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average, and that’s a statistic that’s hard to argue with.” – Noted and passed Chronicle Independent 12/23/2010.
My letter in response:
December, 30, 2013
Chronicle-Independent
Martin L. Cahn, Editor
Camden, South Carolina 29020
Dear Editor:
“So all of this adds up to no warming for almost 17 years now. And climate scientists are still debating and trying to figure out what’s going on. We have some subjective explanations and possibilities for what’s going on, but something quantitative or having the models actually be able to predict something like this–well, no, we’re not there yet.” — Dr. Judith Curry on the pause in global warming
In your paper’s “Noted and passed” feature, December 23, 2013, I discovered that “the planet is heating up at an alarming rate.” This surprised me for global temperatures have remained remarkably unchanged on a trend basis for the past 16 years. This phenomenon has received a bit of notice because it shows how complex the climate is and how difficult it is to make predictions. It also shows that there are natural factors e.g., the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) which negatively swamp the effects of greenhouse gasses for perhaps decades. These negative factors get precious little attention because they would lessen the urgency felt by some policy proponents to currently begin to curb emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels. The political difficulty of convincing electorates of the problem seems to have enabled an attitude of being less than truthful about the problem’s urgency.
NOAA’s monthly report “State of the Climate” bases its warmest or coldest month claim upon an instrument record for land based stations, which in 1880 through the first 40 years of the instrument record was extremely sparse. Based on that sparse network, then that claim of the warmest November is accurate but incomplete. What would be more helpful would be to more fully explain the pause in global warming that has occurred since 1997 and then place that warmest month claim in that larger context.
Consider for a moment if the economy had failed to grow for the past 16 years but over the last century had increased in size by 5% you could make the claim that economic output for November was the highest it has ever been since recordkeeping began (bumps and wiggles in a time series don’t influence trends) and it was the 345th consecutive month that economic output was above its 20th-century average. At the same time, government statisticians ignored that economic output had remained unchanged for the past 16 years. I am sure you would be screaming from the highest point in Camden that this deceitful practice of reporting economic statistics must end at once. But yet when this exact same practice is preformed upon climate data you are alarmed at a trend that doesn’t exist.
Steve Hales
Marcia Wyatt has a new webpage called “Wyatt on Earth”:
http://www.wyattonearth.net/home.html
Links to her Stadium Wave papers are here:
http://www.wyattonearth.net/originalresearchstadiumwave.html
Regards
Buried the lead. The comparison with economics and hypocrisy was the winner. They might publish everything except the last paragraph.
Mike M says:
December 30, 2013 at 9:34 am
The only problem Steve is that you have inadvertantly schooled them how to report stagnated life expectancy numbers after Obamacare takes hold – “Under Obamacare, US life expectancy has remained at or near the highest level it’s ever been!”
Mike M, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read here in a long time! Stealing!
I am always reluctant to weigh in here because I am not an expert but as a skeptic and a lukewarmer I feel I need to clarify just a bit and hope that not too much calumny heads in my direction. 🙂 When Mosher brought up the notion of climate mechanisms he was, I think, referring to GHGs but he wasn’t talking about climate sensitivity upon which he has stated before “[i]f you understand the formula for estimating ECS, its clear why the estimate is coming down and getting more narrow.” I think Curry’s Stadium Wave fits nicely into what Mosh said earlier about mechanisms vs. features. In Curry’s example the TCS is affected by the wave but not the ECS which is a century or more response. A recurring theme is more data and more data another 10 years and ECS estimates will be a lot better.
Steven Mosher says:
That’s right. It is an easily proven statistical principle.
Not sure why you’re being snarky with the previous poster here, but I’ll leave that in so those who live by the snark can die by the snark.
The previous poster did not apply OR to all of climate science, only to a specific proposition: that an exact balance exists between two specified mechanisms: warming by CO2 vs cooling due to a slide into an ice age. Out of the two hypotheses: (1) “the temp is flat because an ice age is starting and the CO2 CAGW theory is correct, but the ice age slide is of the same magnitude as the CO2 warming” vs (2) “the temp is flat because nothing is happening” – (2) is the simpler.
When your understanding of another poster’s comment is worse than a five-year-old’s, you know you’re in trouble.
John Silver says: “It’s not a pause, it’s a peak.”
Robert W Turner says: “Agreed. Thermal momentum is waning and will soon be declining.”
Speaking of peaks, short term peaks in temperature represent heat-shedding mechanisms–rapid T⁴ greater-than-average loss of heat from the system. Adding them into the equations to estimate a “global” temperature is missing the point.
Probably the simplest explanation is this:
Whatever it was that caused the 20th century warming has now reached a peak and may be going into reverse.
It’s simple, and you don’t even have to know what caused the warming.
It’s also what’s been happening for the past few billion years.
Best regards, and happy new year to everyone at WUWT!
Chris
“Consider for a moment if the economy had failed to grow for the past 16 years but over the last century had increased in size by 5% you could make the claim that economic output for November was the highest it has ever been since recordkeeping began (bumps and wiggles in a time series don’t influence trends) and it was the 345th consecutive month that economic output was above its 20th-century average. At the same time, government statisticians ignored that economic output had remained unchanged for the past 16 years.”
Excellent point. Puts into perspective the silliness of UK Met Office’s statements about “the hottest years since records began”. I shall use it myself.
A peek at the peak.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend
A good thing this kind of heresy can’t be printed in the LA Times. http://reason.com/24-7/2013/10/19/la-times-bars-climate-change-skeptics-fr
Last sentence, ‘Preformed’ should be ‘performed’.
Somewhat related. Check out this article at the Guardian. Money quote:
“Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.“
The comments are also more than a little depressing. I swear that if St. Louis were being ground to dust under a mile thick glacier, these people would still be screaming about us burning up.
Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence on average global temperature. There are no assumptions. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/.
Dangerous warming? 1°F/century? Whether 0% or 100% anthropogenic, it’s a feature, not a bug.
How about Willis’s one-line climate model?
Seconded!