No matter if it's a climatic 'pause' or 'jolt', still no warming

Richard Kerr (Science) in 2009: Warming ‘Pause’ About to Be Replaced by ‘Jolt’

Guest essay by Robert Bradley Jr.

“Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and ‘we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,’ the Hadley Centre group writes…. Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.”

– Richard Kerr, Science (2009)

That’s Richard A. Kerr, the longtime, award-winning climate-change scribe for Science magazine, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The article, “What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit,” was published October 1, 2009.

The article is important in the history of climate thought because it captures neatly the (over)confidence of the scientists who turn to models to justify their faith that past overestimation will soon be reversed. Judith Curry’s recent discovery of F. A. Hayek’s Nobel Prize Lecture in Economics, The Pretense of Knowledge, marks a new front in the mainstream climate debate. [1]

Secondly, today’s explanation for the “pause” (a term used in Kerr’s 2009 article) is not mentioned back then—ocean delay.

Third, Kerr frames the debate in political terms with Copenhagen just ahead—and fails to interview or include the contrary views about how climate sensitivity might be less than the climate models assume in their physical equations.

Here is the guts of the Kerr article as the 5th year anniversary comes this year:

The blogosphere has been having a field day with global warming’s apparent decade-long stagnation. Negotiators are working toward an international global warming agreement to be signed in Copenhagen in December, yet there hasn’t been any warming for a decade. What’s the point, bloggers ask?

Climate researchers are beginning to answer back in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature. The pause in warming is real enough, but it’s just temporary, they argue from their analyses.

A natural swing in climate to the cool side has been holding greenhouse warming back, and such swings don’t last forever. “In the end, global warming will prevail,” says climate scientist Gavin

Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.

The latest response from the climate community comes in State of the Climate in 2008, a special supplement to the current (August) issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Climate researcher Jeff Knight and eight colleagues at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, U.K., first establish that—at least in one leading temperature record—greenhouse warming has been stopped in its tracks for the past 10 years.

In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Corrected for the natural temperature effects of El Niño and its sister climate event La Niña, the decade’s trend is a perfectly flat 0.00°C.

So contrarian bloggers are right: There’s been no increase in greenhouse warming lately. That result came as no surprise to

Knight and his colleagues or, for that matter, to most climate scientists. But the Hadley Centre group took the next step, using climate modeling to try to quantify how unusual a 10-year warming pause might be.

In 10 modeling runs of 21st century climate totaling 700 years worth of simulation, long-term warming proceeded about as expected: 2.0°C by the end of the century. But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat.

From this result, the group concludes that the model can reproduce natural jostlings of the climate system—perhaps a shift in heat-carrying ocean currents—that can cool the world and hold off greenhouse warming for a decade. But natural climate variability in the model has its limits. Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and “we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,” the Hadley Centre group writes.

And that resumption could come as a bit of a jolt, says Adam Scaife of the group, as the temperature catches up with the greenhouse gases added during the pause.

Pinning the pause on natural variability makes sense to most researchers. “That goes without saying,” writes climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany by e-mail. “We’ve made [that point] several times on RealClimate,” a blog.

Solar physicist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and climate modeler David Rind of GISS reached the same conclusion in a peer-reviewed 15 August paper in Geophysical Research Letters. They broke down recent temperature variation into components attributable to greenhouse gases, pollutant aerosols, volcanic aerosols, El Niño/La Niña, and solar variability.

Combined, those influences explain all of the observed variability, by Lean and Rind’s accounting. But unlike the Hadley Centre’s model-based analysis, this assessment attributes a good deal of climate variability to variability in solar activity. That’s because most models can’t translate solar variability into climate variability the way the actual climate system can (Science, 28 August, p. 1058), Rind says.

Researchers may differ about exactly what’s behind recent natural climate variability, but they agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer. “Our prediction is that if past is prologue, the solar component will turn around and lead to rapid warming in the next 5 years,” says Rind.

Climate modeler David Smith of the Hadley Centre, who was not involved in the State of the Climate analysis, says his group’s climate model forecasts—made much the way weather forecasts are made—are still calling for warming to resume in the next few years as ocean influences reverse (Science, 10 August 2007, p. 746). Whether that’s in time to boost climate negotiations is anyone’s guess.

The ball is back in Richard Kerr’s court. Dr. Kerr, let’s have a five-year update for Science with a headline like “What Happened to Global Warming: Can Mainstream Climate Science Regain Its Footing?” His update might well take into account Judith Curry’s current post, IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW), that documented “several key elements … weakening of the case for attributing the warming [to] human influences:

  • Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
  • Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
  • Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
  • Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
  • Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming.”

———–

[1] Curry cited this quotation from Hayek’s 1974 lecture: “I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false.”

– See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2014/01/kerr-science-2009-pause-jolt/#sthash.WL2iT5vI.dpuf

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Stephen Richards

In 10 modeling runs of 21st century climate totaling 700 years worth of simulation, long-term warming proceeded about as expected: 2.0°C by the end of the century. But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat
Help me clarify this, please. They did 10 runs for the 21st century. Each run gave a different result? By the end of each run of the model temp had reach 2°C above what norm (or the average end warming for 10 runs was 2°C)? Even though they did 900 years worth of runs (2010 – 2100 * 10) they got 700 years worth of simulation (90 years worth of simulationS) in those 10 runs they got an average of 1.7 10 yr flat intervals / run.? We have had 17 years of relatively insignificant warming / cooling (depending on whose adulterated numbers you use).
Is this what those clowns at the UK met off call science? My god, you poor people. Stupidity is so engrained in the psyche of British government scientists they don’t even recognise their stupidity when placed before their peers. God help us all.

Alan Robertson

The ball is back in Richard Kerr’s court. Dr. Kerr, let’s have a five-year update for Science with a headline like “What Happened to Global Warming: Can Mainstream Climate Science Regain Its Footing?”
______________________
Fat + Chance = HaHAAAAA

All this talk about running the models and so many simulations came out with pauses (hiatuses or whatever). So perhaps some smarter person than I can steer me in the right direction.
They do not have hundreds of models. Fortunately. They have but a few. So when they say that 17 out of x hundred showed a 10 year pause, that means something is not right.
It appears they are merely dice rolling. And the law of probability says that every once in a while, you can roll 10 successive rolls of snake eyes.
But while the science of probabilities is valid, this is not that science. basically, they are saying they are rolling dice (weighted of course) to find out how many chances they get to get it right. But they have no clue what the next roll is going to be.

Ed Reid

“Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher
We all face the risk of outliving our predictions, except when the prediction period is a century long.
In this same spirit, it might be time to revisit the model scenario graphic used during the 1988 Hansen/Wirth “warm hearing room trick” presentation to Congress. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/how-well-did-hansen-1988-do/)

Steve

An economists blog I read offers their opinion on climate science use of models and computer simms:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/01/14/computer-based-statistical-and-econometric-packages/
Just to quote I paragraph:
“This pathetic error-prone analysis has been the foundation of so-called ‘climate science’ which is riddled with basic analytical flaws such as mis-specification, omitted variables, multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, measurement errors, autocorrelation, data mining to support prior conclusions, publication bias, and confusing causality with correlation.”

albertalad

You guys got it all wrong – all their billions spent on mitigating AGW is finally paying off – we have the “pause” in warming. We just need to pay more to the third world and we get the next mini or full blown ice age! What can go wrong?

luysii

It would be interesting to see how many times and for how long they had to run the model they used back then to get a 17 year pause. It should be simple enough to do.

Lew Skannen

“The pause in warming is real enough, but it’s just temporary, they argue from their analyses.”
They are oblivious to the fact that is clear to the rest of us – they did not predict the pause and so we have no faith whatsoever in any of their other ‘get out of jail’ predictions for the future.

Man Bearpig

I wonder what the end temperature was for those model runs that had long pauses in them.

C210n

Warmists: “Since we’ve rolled 18 tails in a row, we’re now gonna have a jolt of heads in a row.”

kenw

So, they didn’t foresee the pause on their models, but now the same models predict a resumed warming after this pause?
How do i get a job like that?

Scute

“In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
David Rose at the Daily Mail said in a recent article that the IPCC had predicted the 0.2 C increase but that AR5 was ignoring this and using sleight of hand by referring to the 1951-2013 rise of circa 0.12/decade being little different from AR4. (Long time frame gobbles up the effect of the pause). After the article, alarmist blogs rounded on Rose saying the IPCC had never said there would be a 2.0 C rise from 1999. So who’s telling the truth? I’m sure I heard the 0.2 C claim being bandied about till they saw the temps stalling.

Peter Miller

Armageddon cults with their dire predictions for the imminent end of the world – regularly updated, whenever the drop dead date passes without anything ever happening – bear a striking resemblance to those made by today’s climate science models.
The gullible have always been prone to falling for scary fantasy stories – so nothing new there.

“Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and ‘we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,’ the Hadley Centre group writes…”
Wishful thinking so far.
For the past 17 years, global warming has stopped. They can accurately label it a “pause” — but only if it resumes.
Global warming has not resumed. It is still stopped, and for all anyone knows, temperatures could just as well decline. Therefore, calling it a “pause” is only wishful thinking. It is also known as: ‘spin’. But is that kind of ‘spin’ really science?

It’s all about sunspots. This man made global warming religion crusade is nothing but tributes to fools. May the next Nobel Peace prize go to some one one who earned it not some excuse for controlling Cap and. Trade.
I have the Euro nations come into my resort store complaining about Cap and Trade Tax on all their plane Tickets. I introduce them to Sunspot Activity. It is nice to see the Brite squirm when they know they have been lied to and taxed again by the Euro Union with the blessing of the Crown. Swift upper lip is a constant.

son of mulder

“A natural swing in climate to the cool side has been holding greenhouse warming back, and such swings don’t last forever. “In the end, global warming will prevail,” says climate scientist Gavin
Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.”
So Gavin implicitly admits the models are wrong (as they can’t even predict natural stuff) but also he has no basis for assuming that the warming previously was not mostly a natural swing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

richardscourtney

Scute:
Your post at January 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm asks

“In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

David Rose at the Daily Mail said in a recent article that the IPCC had predicted the 0.2 C increase but that AR5 was ignoring this and using sleight of hand by referring to the 1951-2013 rise of circa 0.12/decade being little different from AR4. (Long time frame gobbles up the effect of the pause). After the article, alarmist blogs rounded on Rose saying the IPCC had never said there would be a 2.0 C rise from 1999. So who’s telling the truth? I’m sure I heard the 0.2 C claim being bandied about till they saw the temps stalling.

The IPCC AR4 did make such a prediction, but it was for “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century.
The failure of this warming to occur falsifies the models and amendments to the models to “emulate” the pause do not alter this because half of the warming was said to be “committed” from the past.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 6 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
And amendments to the models to “emulate” the pause do not alter this because half of the warming was said to be “committed” from the past.

Richard

Scute

@ luysii Jan 14th 2013 at 1:57 pm
You got me thinking. These people use such weasel words that I wonder whether the 10 model runs were cherry-picked out of 100 or 1000 runs which showed no 10 year pauses (except the 10 cherry-picked). In my experience with wheedling out the truth behind their words, it is the omission of the truth over and above what is otherwise a true statement that tells us what they really did. The following quote from the article may well be true:
“In 10 modeling runs of 21st century climate totaling 700 years worth of simulation, long-term warming proceeded about as expected: 2.0°C by the end of the century. But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat.” …..
but this statement doesn’t preclude the possibility that 1000 runs were done and 990 binned. Remember, these people have no shame in essentially telling big lies by omitting the truth e.g. at the AR5 SPM press conference and the Met Office’s grossly misleading response to David Rose’s first pause article in 2012.
I’m surprised I never thought to question the number of model runs before- I’ve heard of this study several times over the years. Despite having no trust at all in what they say, I still let that one slip through.

richardscourtney

Sorry about the format error. This is a repost.
Scute:
Your post at January 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm asks

“In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

David Rose at the Daily Mail said in a recent article that the IPCC had predicted the 0.2 C increase but that AR5 was ignoring this and using sleight of hand by referring to the 1951-2013 rise of circa 0.12/decade being little different from AR4. (Long time frame gobbles up the effect of the pause). After the article, alarmist blogs rounded on Rose saying the IPCC had never said there would be a 2.0 C rise from 1999. So who’s telling the truth? I’m sure I heard the 0.2 C claim being bandied about till they saw the temps stalling.

The IPCC AR4 did make such a prediction, but it was for “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century.
The failure of this warming to occur falsifies the models and amendments to the models to “emulate” the pause do not alter this because half of the warming was said to be “committed” from the past.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 6 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
And amendments to the models to “emulate” the pause do not alter this because half of the warming was said to be “committed” from the past.

Richard

GAZ

Modellers standard answer is: yes, we accept that we didn’t quite get it right. The modelling you refer to was done x years ago when we had less data an less sophisticated methods, but….
Now we have data for additional x years and we have improved our modelling techniques, so you should trust us now!
And it’s working on the gullible.

Jimmy Haigh.

dbstealey says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“Wishful thinking so far.
For the past 17 years, global warming has stopped. They can accurately label it a “pause” — but only if it resumes. ”
My thoughts exactly.

“In the end, global warming will prevail,” says climate scientist Gavin
Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.

This sounds like Gavin Schmidt is talking about a political war rather than science. It sounds like he is saying they will prevail no matter what they have to do to “win”. Why one would even suspect that he would use NASA to fudge the data records and would use government funds to help spread propaganda rather than truth.
Must just be my skeptical and suspicious nature.

Jolt is mere dysphemism for the familiar epithet JERK!

The greatest obstacle to progress is the illusion of knowledge.

barrybrill

Scute said:
“…alarmist blogs rounded on Rose saying the IPCC had never said there would be a 2.0 C rise from 1999”.
The WG1 report (and SPM) for AR4 in 2007 forecast warming of 0.2°C/decade for the following two decades. This was sharply reduced in AR5.
Because 2.0°C (from pre-industrial times) is the warming limit fixed at Copenhagen, there have been dozens of predictions by modelers, most of which spanned the period 2045-2075 as most likely. But it now appears this was all spin, probably generated by focus on the A2 and A1F1 emission scenarios, and the high end of the sensitivity range.
It’s clear from the Kerr article that mainstream science has never really believed the 2°C limit would be achieved before the end of the century.
If 2100 was the consensus date in 2009, it must now be well into next century – given that the IPCC has discounted the models by about 40% in their Stockholm non-expert assessment. And the whole expected process is lagging by at least 17 years.

Speed

The BAMS State of the Climate, 2008 referenced in the article is available here …
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2008.php

Curious George

@Steve January 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm: Steve, I agree that “climate science” is rife with a misuse of statistics. However, (at least some) climate models attempt to seriously solve the underlying physical processes. Unfortunately, even there a desire to get expected results sometimes trumps the honesty:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257

Henry Bowman

Five years really isn’t a very long time span. Kerr might possibly be correct (though, if so, likely for the wrong reasons). As Yogi Berra reputedly said, “Predicting is hard, especially about the future”.

Richard Kerr has a long standing interest in declaring the empirical validation of AGW theory and of affirming modelling predictions. In the mid-1990s, along with NYT writer William Stevens, he played an avant guarde role in the promotion of the idea that AGW had been detected. They used leaking information from drafting documents of the IPCC 2nd Assessment to make the claims. Moreover, Stevens and Kerr can be seen as putting pressure on the IPCC to push though these claims that Ben Santer was trying to get up on the basis of his recent unpublished work (he was the coordinating lead author of the detection chapter). In Sept (?) 1995 Kerr wrote an article saying that detection had been agreed by the IPCC experts, but that this result was still ‘semi-official’. Then, after the Madrid plenary of the IPCC WGI, Kerr proclaimed: It’s official: the first glimmer of greenhouse warming seen [Science 8 Dec95, p1565]. Indeed, even then it was not official, as the IPCC meeting to accept the report began in Rome a few days later.

Schrodinger's Cat

These guys have no shame.
They claimed that nothing could stop the relentless warming. Then they retrofitted the pause, which could well be a peak rather than a pause. Then they retrofitted natural causes to explain it, then they say they are not surprised, it is what they expected.
They have no credibility either.

Jimbo

In the end, global warming will prevail,” says climate scientist Gavin
Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.

When is the end?
Here is a little something from our Gavin of NASA. The people made up of the right kinda stuff.

June 2, 1999
Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect,Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model
“…Other authors of the Nature paper were Gavin A. Schmidt, associate research scientist at Columbia’s Center for Climate Systems Research; Ron L. Miller, associate research scientist in the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics at Columbia, and Lionel Pandolfo, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of British Columbia. Drs. Shindell, Schmidt and Miller also maintain an affiliation with the NASA Goddard Institute….”
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19554.html

Gavin must have missed the Circumpolar Vortex, melting Arctic making it colder and the missing deep sea heat.

luysii

Scute’s comment on “It would be interesting to see how many times and for how long they had to run the model they used back then to get a 17 year pause. It should be simple enough to do.” made me think a bit more.
So I looked at the Science article again — the longest period of stasis they obtained in the 700 years of model running was 15 years.
It isn’t clear to me how many years each run of the model cited in the paper can actually encompass. We do know the accuracy of weather prediction declines the farther out it gets.
It certainly should be possible to take the model used back then in the Science paper and run it over and over with today’s more powerful computers and see just how often the current period of stasis (17+ years and counting) occurs (assuming it can be run for 20 or more years at a stretch).

From google scholar
Science 8 February 2013: Vol. 339 no. 6120 p. 638 “Forecasting Regional Climate Change Flunks Its First Test” by Richard A. Kerr “The strengthening greenhouse is warming the world, but what about your backyard, or at least your region? It’s hard to say, climate researchers concede. Modelers have sharpened their tools enough to project declining grape yields in a warmer, drier California wine country and to forecast that the Mediterranean region will be getting drier in coming decades. But just how reliable such localized projections might be remains unclear. Now, a group of global, rather than regional, modelers has tested a widely used regional model by simulating climate change, not just static past climate. Preliminary results show that the model improved little if at all on the fuzzy view of future climate provided by a globe-spanning model.”
and
Science 22 November 2013: Vol. 342 no. 6161 p. 918 “Humans Fueled Global Warming Millennia Ago” by Richard A. Kerr “People were already pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere 5000 years before the Industrial Revolution, air bubbles in Antarctic ice suggest. The new evidence supports a paleoclimatologist’s provocative idea that humanity began warming the world early, as methane bubbled out of early rice farmers’ paddies.”
From Google:
“Science’s Richard Kerr Wins Planetary Science Journalism Award” 17 July 2013 “Richard Kerr, long-time reporter for Science, has received an award from the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) recognizing his broad coverage of planetary science research, including a 2012 article on gravity studies of the moon.”
Looks like a man avoiding the inconvenient truth of climate model failure.

RS

Normally in science, when the models and reality diverge, it’s not reality that’s wrong.
When theory fails to predict real world results, it’s not the real world that’s wrong.
But apparently, when enough grant money is at stake, science can be quite flexible.

One might well question the intelligence of someone who admits that his model did not predict the current state but is still full of confidence that its predictions for the future are ironclad (although in this case very fuzzy – “a few years or so”). His “evidence” seems to bethat “all thescientists believe this will happen.” Of course, “all those same scientists” had formerly believed that a pause of this magnitude was “near impossible.” Gooney birds don’t look so inferior, by comparison.

pat

bbc more interested in PERCEPTIONS than PREDICTIONS lately. a new meme is developing – scare people with crazy geoengineering stories & they’ll beg for carbon dioxide emissions reductions:
Andrew Luck-Baker still stuck in Antarctica, so his Discovery Programme yesterday was hosted by GAIA VINCE! the much-published Gaia:
Wandering Gaia: About Me (Gaia Vince)
This is a uniquely critical time in our planet’s history, in which climate change, globalisation, communications technology and increasing human population are changing our world as never before. The developing world is experiencing these impacts more obviously and sooner than the rich West – they are already feeling the effects of biodiversity loss, erratic weather patterns, glacial melt and forced migrations, for example – and I am documenting these impacts, talking to ordinary people, scientists and heads of state as I travel in the Anthropocene…
I am the opinion, analysis and features editor for the journal Nature Climate Change, which publishes the latest research in the field. I also write for a variety of different outlets, including the BBC, The Guardian, New Scientist, Australian Geographic, Science, Seed, and I do pieces for radio. Before I set off on this journey, I was the news editor of the science journal Nature. And before that, I was an editor at New Scientist magazine. You can see some of my recent work that’s relevant to this trip on the sidebar under ‘Me Elsewhere‘…
http://wanderinggaia.com/about-me/
listen from 12 min in, for Naomi Vaughan of UEA:
26:30: BBC Discovery: Geoengineering
Gaia Vince explores the process of putting chemicals in the stratosphere to stop solar energy reaching the earth…
Another idea is to spray seawater to whiten clouds that would reflect more energy away from the earth.
Gaia Vince talks to the researchers who are considering solar radiation management. She also hears from social scientists who are finding out what the public think about the idea and who are asking who should make decisions about implementing this way of cooling the planet…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01p2pf4
(PARAPHRASING NAOMI VAUGHAN: SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO LEARN ABOUT GEOENGINEERING PLANS VIA NAOMI’S WORKSHOPS ON “PERCEPTIONS”, HAVE A PERCEPTION THAT, IF THIS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS ARE LOOKING AT, THINKING ABOUT, THEN THIS CLIMATE CHANGE MUST BE A REAL PROBLEM & I MUST DO MORE.
GAIA VINCE: SO IRONICALLY, TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT GEOENGINEERING MAY MAKE THEM MORE LIKELY TO USE LESS FOSSIL FUELS.)
Science Direct: October 2013: Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK – (Elsevier’s) Global Environmental Change Vol 23, Issue 5
Authors: Adam Corner , Karen Parkhill, Nick Pidgeon, Naomi E. Vaughan
Participants raised serious concerns about the safety of SRM technologies, and a strong preference for more conventional, mitigation options over geoengineering techniques tended to be expressed…
3. Methodology
Following a pilot study in Cardiff, four one day deliberative workshops were conducted in four different cities in the UK: Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow and Norwich…
Each workshop was attended by 11 participants. Participants were recruited through a professional recruitment agency…
The workshops were facilitated by the authors and took place over the course of one day. There were several stages to the day including: (1) an overview of climate change involving a presentation by facilitators and a whole group discussion by participants; (2) World Café style small group discussion of responses (i.e. mitigation followed by adaptation followed by geoengineering) to climate change…
One unexpected aspect of the debates about geoengineering and nature was the particular salience of concerns about the increasing materialism of modern society. Perhaps, they represent a deeper expression of concern about the continuation of an industrial project that is now known to have had a significantly negative impact on many aspects of the ‘natural’ environment…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001015
Matt McGrath building the meme a week ago:
8 Jan: BBC: Matt McGrath: Geoengineering plan could have ‘unintended’ side effect
However some researchers have questioned the experiment and the findings.
“I know of no serious scientist who would advocate introducing 100 megatonnes of sulphur dioxide in a four degree warmer world,” said Dr Matt Watson, from the University of Bristol, who was previously involved in a British project to test this concept.
( Prof Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds)”At present, these injection technologies do not exist, even on paper, and this precludes an evaluation of realistic effectiveness or side effects.
“If we want to suppress global warming the only game in town at present is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25639343

Jimbo

OK, here it is again. Here is the list showing the history of global warming standstill angst. It starts with our dear Professor Phil Jones (the slippery snake).
I will have to add some for 2014, but I will have to wait a few months maybe.

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________________
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
__________________
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
__________________
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
__________________
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
__________________
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
__________________
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
__________________
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
__________________
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
__________________
Met Office – July 2013
The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?”
__________________
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
__________________
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

Russ R.

“a pretense of exact knowledge that is likely to be false.”
Here is another quote they can mull over while they wait for the magic molecule to come to their rescue:
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sherlock Holmes Quote
-A Scandal in Bohemia

Speed

The model predicted that the airplane could take off from our 5,000 foot runway. I know it’s out in the weeds somewhere but it’ll be flying real soon now. Can I get you a cup of coffee while we wait?

aaron

“But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat.”
They’d have to be negative at least .2C/decade to “offset” the supposed “accelerating” warming. If you assume accelerating warming, which is required for global warming to ever be faster than what is beneficial, we’d need to be looking for far longer periods than 10 years being flat, since it should be increasingly steep.

Jimbo

Here is why I create my lists. It shuts up persistent Warmists who insist on one thing or another. Rather than make claims and counterclaims I point them to what the climate scientists said or published – allowing Warmists an opportunity to challenge the climate scientists instead. It is a great strategy for me and save me time.

aaron

(I was referring to looking for evidence natural variability in the historical record.)

Joe Chang

It does not really matter what happens in the next several years, warming, cooling or flat. The whole CAGW model is already broken. There was never any contention on the direct impact of increasing CO2, which is a moderate and uniform warming contribution. The C in front of AGW entirely hinged on amplification of the effects of CO2. To make that argument fly, it was necessary to demand that the albedo element in the earth energy balance equation to be essentially steady from other factors. Only CO2 induced warming can cause this to vary significantly (excepting of point events like volcanos). If albedo has natural variability, then the whole amplification argument evaporates. Since natural variability has already caused a hiatus in GW, the amplification element of AGW is no longer viable.

JR

Global temps have not increased … but Arctic and sub Arctic temps have … what is going on? Even now the average temp above 80 degs north remains above the average (albeit a small data set).

Lil Fella from OZ

We’ve been waiting….. 17 years.

Five years really isn’t a very long time span.
But add it to 12 years and it starts to get significant.

Thanks Robert, good article.
Only the future will tell. I’m watching for ENSO to resolve the hiatus into a peak (cooling follows) or a pause (warming resumes).

markx

Thanks for the compilation Jimbo. Very useful. The number of people who like to say there is no pause seems to be increasing.
Jimbo says: January 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm
OK, here it is again. Here is the list showing the history of global warming standstill angst.

And I do agree with Joe Chang that “The whole CAGW model is already broken”.

But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat.
But this is sleight of hand. We are now at 17 years. How many of the 17 had that long a period of more or less flat?