The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn't warmed for the last 15 years

Explanation #10 for the pause …”coincidence” has just completed the top 10 list, thanks Gavin! Party on! Excellent!

top10_pause_explanations

There is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt et al that comes in as #10 in the growing list of explanations for ‘the pause’. Now that we have a top ten list, let’s review:

  1. New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
  2. THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013. But the heat will come back when you least expect it.
  3. Chinese coal caused the ‘pause’, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study blamed Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. Global warming proponents essentially claimed that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming. Kaufmann et al 2011.
  4. The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon. Estrada 2013.
  5. Cowtan and Way’s (2013) underrepresented Arctic stations get adjustment to fiddle the numbers so that ‘pause’ never existed, but not so fast. It seems all isn’t quite as it seems. Dr. Judith Curry doesn’t think much of it either.
  6. Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming, says CU study – Neely et al March 2013: A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight — dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.
  7. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Solomon et al, 2010 Science Magazine.: Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.’
  8. Slower Pacific Trade winds caused the pause England Et al 2014. A paper published today in Nature Climate Change adds the eighth excuse for the ‘pause’ in global warming: strengthened Pacific trade winds, which according to the authors, were “not captured [simulated] by climate models.” On the basis of those same highly-flawed climate models, the authors predict rapid global warming will resume in a decade or so when those trade winds abate. But in 2006, we were told the opposite.
  9. Stadium Waves. Wyatt and Curry 2013. Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming. Not un-plausible.
  10. Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends” Schmidt et al 2014. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt et al says: ‘Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter.’

More on #10, from Andrew Montford, who writes in The mind-boggling coincidence hypothesis:

============================================================

Schmidt and his colleagues are looking at the hiatus in surface temperature rises and considers why the CMIP5 ensemble all got it so wrong. In their new paper they explain that the reason for this is not – as wild-eyed readers at BH might think – that the models are wonky. In fact it’s all down to an incredible, incredible coincidence

Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter4. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations. Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.

Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and ‘reanalyses’ of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.

We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations. Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, the climate modellers can fit their square peg into a round hole. It wasn’t that the models were running too hot, it was just that nature has got it in for climate modellers.

============================================================

You can see Schmidt et al Reconciling warming trends here

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

170 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 28, 2014 5:10 am

Well, if you add all these up, it seems we’ve fully explained about 6 degrees of the missing 1 degree of warming. Keep this up and in another year or 2 they will have found enough excuses for us to forget about global warming altogether.

MattN
February 28, 2014 5:13 am

I am a process engineer making glass for the optical fiber industry. Since I started my first job out of school in 1997, I have NEVER seen a “coincidence”. When something goes wrong with the product, 100% of the time we trace it to some part that failed as the cause. It is NEVER just a coincidence that my glass is junk at the exact same time a mass flow controller failed. One caused the other.

Riki
February 28, 2014 5:22 am

Coincidental conspiracies. Conspiratorial coincidences. Well, at least it is alliterative. It is also an oxymoron. I am certain that all the morons involved will continue to seek out more coincidental conspiracies of natural forces to explain away their own incompetence. Aha! There you go – Incompetent Coincidental Conspiracies.
I suppose Gavin et al have no clue how absurd they sound? I’m keeping this one right alongside Trenberth’s Roving Hotspot.

michael hart
February 28, 2014 5:26 am

What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies” anywhere in the top 10? Shirley shome mishtake.

[why don’t you provide some evidence of this funding? . . This is a tolerant site but you make a bald statement like that, without back up and you expect to be taken seriously. Childish nonsense that I will leave up as an example of just how pathetic you and your ilk are. . . mod]

February 28, 2014 5:33 am

These Top 10 theories for “the pause” indicate that Nature’s God is conspiring to let some of the most “brilliant” among us make fools of themselves. The result has been a “dampening” of the “settled science.” Perhaps the time has come for taxpayers to demand a dissolution of the financial bands which have connected them with the purveyors of climate alarmism.

Rastech
February 28, 2014 5:40 am

So, given that “a large number of uncertainties produces a certainty” (Arthur Koestler “The Roots of Coincidence”), we now have the proof from the Warmists very own coincidence propositions, that there is absolutely no such thing as AGW (catastrophic or otherwise).
There certainly seems to be a significant degree of synchronicity, in the frequency they are able to shoot themselves in the feet?

Venter
February 28, 2014 5:42 am

Paper sent to you Jeff ID

February 28, 2014 5:47 am

These are 10 very good reasons why many climate scientists look pathetic. I have no respect for those of them who seem more interested in seeking cover rather than the truth. (Judith Curry, I am not talking about you, you are one of the exceptions, in my view.)

tom0mason
February 28, 2014 5:49 am

#11
Nature has got tired and so is having a nice long rest.

Rastech
February 28, 2014 5:54 am

Jauntycyclist: “they cannot identify when their experiment fails .”
They did that just prior to the grant paid work becoming the moving of goalposts.

Jean Parisot
February 28, 2014 5:55 am

Too much publicity, Gaia is shy?
More seriously, has the increased scrutiny reduced the measurement bias in the collection, reporting, and especially the analysis of temperature data. I still haven’t been convinced that the 20th century adjusted temperature record is valid.

Latitude
February 28, 2014 5:56 am

That’s comforting to know…..the computer games can accurately model weather and climate…
….but they can’t model coincidence
Either that…or they have been trying to model coincidence all along.

February 28, 2014 5:57 am

Michael Hart: Please provide examples of your claim “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies.” Also, I am sure many here would be interested in hearing your explanation for the years long pause in global warming. Thanks.

a dood
February 28, 2014 5:58 am

So, basically, climate modeling is just a big game of Calvinball. (Gavinball?)
THE UNOFFICIALLY OFFICIAL RULES OF CALVINBALL
1.2. Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game. The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.
1.5. The Calvinball Field (See Calvinball Equipment – 2.3) should consist of areas, or zones, which are governed by a set of rules declared spontaneously and inconsistently by players. Zones may be appear and disappear as often and wherever the player decides. Zones are often named for their effect. For example, a corollary zone would enable a player to make a corollary (sub-rule) to any rule that has been, will be, or might be declared. A pernicious poem place would require the intruder to do what the name implies. Or an opposite zone would enable a player to declare reverse playibility on the others. (Remember, the player would declare this zone oppositely by not declaring it.)
1.8. Score may be kept or disregarded. In the event that score is kept, it shall have no bearing on the game nor shall it have any logical consistency to it. (Legal scores include ‘Q to 12’, ‘BW-109 to YU-34, and ‘Nosebleed to Trousers’.)
http://www.picpak.net/calvin/calvinball

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 5:58 am

If co-incidence explains the pause, why does it not explain the late 20th century warming that the IPCC says cannot be explained except by CO2?
Nowhere in the IPCC report do they consider co-incidence as a climate forcing. Yet now apparently Gavin says that co-incidence is at least as powerful a forcing as CO2.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 6:10 am

michael hart says:
February 28, 2014 at 5:26 am
What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies”
====================
100 billion dollars in taxpayer money has been funneled to scientists willing to stand up and say “global warming is real”.
I’m pretty sure that with a 100 billion dollars I could find 100 thousand scientists around the world more than willing to stand up and say anything I asked them to. 100 billion dollars is 1 million dollars per scientists.
Most scientists out of grad school haven’t anything to their name except tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, and a bleak prospect of employment in the private sector. The government does not forgive student loans, even if you go personally bankrupt.
So, when the government comes along and offers serious coin to prostitute themselves to service their loans, they have no option but to bend over.

February 28, 2014 6:14 am

Overall then, are they suggesting that any one of those would be enough to override their projected additional CO2 warming?
Or the more paranoid: they are all working against us?

Robertv
February 28, 2014 6:29 am

11. Because so many are now controlling the data they can’t manipulate it (so much).

G. Karst
February 28, 2014 6:36 am

Coincidence is the correct answer. It was extremely unlucky that the mild warming happened at a time of rapid CO2 rise. This coincidence diverted the entire field of science to a “catastrophic” end.
First reports are always misleading and climate scientist must correct themselves, and begin a course, of critical thinking. GK

rogerknights
February 28, 2014 6:40 am

Lance Wallace says:
February 28, 2014 at 12:38 am
What is “hi” in the first reason (solar variation)? Mods: Could you explain or correct that?

Repeated for emphasis.
[That is not clear right now. We’re looking at it. Mod]

JimS
February 28, 2014 6:41 am

How’s about, all the models used to project climate change were blond?

February 28, 2014 6:43 am

So the short answer is that there are at least 10 things (#10 is probably a multitude of factors) that are affecting climate that are NOT in climate models.
Kind of like engineers designing a plane but forgetting everything except the food cart.

rogerknights
February 28, 2014 6:50 am

Bloke down the pub says:
February 28, 2014 at 1:25 am
Desperation is the word that springs to mind.

“Denial” is my first choice.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 6:54 am

Isn’t co-incidence another name for Natural Variability? Didn’t the IPCC say that Natural Variability is low?
So, Gavin appears to be contradicting the IPCC.

RichardLH
February 28, 2014 6:55 am

michael hart says:
February 28, 2014 at 5:26 am
“What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies” anywhere in the top 10? Shirley shome mishtake.”
Do we just believe in what the data says as opposed to made up stuff.
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters-1979-on.png