Explanation #10 for the pause …”coincidence” has just completed the top 10 list, thanks Gavin! Party on! Excellent!
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:
- New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
- THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013. But the heat will come back when you least expect it.
- 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.
- The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon. Estrada 2013.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.’
- 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.
- Stadium Waves. Wyatt and Curry 2013. ‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming. Not un-plausible.
- “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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lao Tzu has something to say about models, modelers and their supposed predictive powers that must be said often.
“Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.”
If these modelers can’t admit that they are working from a foundation of incomplete understanding and that prediction is a fool’s game, then they should be ignored by any right thinking person.
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.
Lao Tzu has something to say
===========
Apparently Gavin is not a student of eastern wisdom:
Those who justify themselves do not convince.
Lao Tzu (c.604 – 531 B.C.)
Mother Nature or Nemesis (aka the Pranksters on Olympus).
How about: “Notional Academy of Sciences”?
Michael Hall – you forgot the sarc tag.
Reading the precis regarding volcanic forcing, I find no reference to an actual measured increase in number, severity or length of eruption. In fact, the paper states, as usual, this claim of volcanic forcing being the reason is: “Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.” & ‘Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources.’ with the ‘observations’ evidently being SO2 concentrations.
Is there any database of actual vulcanism activity dating from about 1990 which would lend some credibility to this claim?
Additionally, the study shows an endpoint of 2010, I presume the authors are implying this volcanic upswing in SO2 output is continuing, but is there somewhere where this is actually stated?
Thx.
All hail the mighty Curve Fit!
We now return you to the usual Alarmism.
Booger Smoot says:
February 28, 2014 at 6:56 am
If these modelers can’t admit that they are working from a foundation of incomplete understanding and that prediction is a fool’s game, then they should be ignored by any right thinking person.
================
just about the only predictive science that works is the earth ocean tides. and that is based on Astrology. and US science in particular things Astrology is rubbish. Yet the Old Farmer’s Almanac, which is also based on Astrology regularly outperforms the climate models. Milankovitch cycles are also a form of Astrology. Climate prediction based on the position of the heavenly objects in the skies. Yet that is how early humans learned to predict the coming seasons. It is also the basis of how early humans learned to tell time.
Climate modellers ignore what has been proven to work, and instead try and predict the future state of a chaotic system from first principles. Something mathematics cannot achieve. Something that the IPCC has already recognized is impossible (“the butterfly effect”).
If something is “conspiring”, then coincidence plays no part. Gavin apparently thinks climatic factors sit around in a smoke-filled room plotting the demise of climate predictions.
Lew and Dumbsky should look into this conspiracy ideation.
Is this a coincidence?
So, plants/animals grow over time into an existing climate and emit organic compounds and then those change that climate?
Is that climate change?
ref.—http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/a-case-of-the-vapours-source-of-climate-active-organic-aerosol-particles-pinned-down/
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
I think it’s implausibe that they didn’t conflate natural and anthorpogenic warming when developing their models and calculating feedbacks/responses.
My summary of Gavin’s latest argument:
1) The only reason our models failed so spectacularly is because their basic assumptions are wrong. That means the models themselves are even more right than we thought.
2) Anyone who claims this logic is anything less than perfect is ipso facto in the pay of Big Oil and wants all life on Earth to end. Immediately.
3) Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to call up some friends who will peer review and publish this for me in some prestigious magazine, and then watch the world’s media proclaim its unassailable truth and moral wholesomeness. Thank you.
4) PS: [trimmed]
The Warming is Hiding in The Cooling …. Doh !
…………….. or something.
For Gawd’s Sake you people – PLEASE
Let’s get real and help each other out, instead of this
incessant trivial hairsplitting and points scoring, please.
It was the SUV gas what did it,
No wait you, it was the dirty coal power station,
I hope you can live with your bad self, and the smelly CO2 you caused.
Those Deniers, they are the scum of the Earth you know, aren’t they ?
No it was the SUN, or a Volcanoes has done it, or it was a Cosmic Ray Beam.
All lies, All lies, it was all made up by the fake computer models, and I never
took a cent from that gas/oil/coal/nuclear people, you know I didn’t, so why are
you saying that ? You’re the one, the one what did it, with your crazy windmill
and solar powe. Did you know a Solar Panel causes the death of a Chinese
Person every day in China because of the pollution you cause by your Solar
Beam Panel nonsense..
Jeeezzzuzzz
Grow up the lot of you !
it had to be said though
😉
This link has many, more precise models. Yet they acknowledge far more uncertainty.
#2 “The oceans ate it” seems to be about the most popular excuse -especially for Trenberth . However it is simply untrue. The latest and best analysis of the all the OHC data is at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Here Lyman and Johnson in Table 1 show that the uptake of heat in the 0- 100m depth declined almost 90% when the period 1983 – 2011 is compared with 2004 -2011. Significant declines are also shown at deeper levels .In short on currently cooling globe the shallower ocean levels are cooling first as one might reasonably expect. These data destroy Trenberth’s last hidey hole for the “missing” heat
I have been saying for some time that the GCM approach is inherently useless for forecasting climate and that another method i.e. pattern recognition or to use the NOAA jargon the “constructed analogue” approach is required . For a series of posts and forecasts of the coming cooling based on the 60 year and 1000 year periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar “activity”see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Draw a line under it and sum: They haven’t a clue why they’re wrong, but they’re sure they’re right.
“…it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.”
“Unsatisfying.” Really? Not hugely embarrassing? No ethical issues, or creation of doubt about the entire basis of your work? Just not satisfying?
Wow.
Coincidence, or negative feedback.
Take your pick.
Or natural variability
Mod: Didn’t realize my word choice was trim-worthy or I never would have typed it. Apologies for that, and lesson learned, but could you at least leave the part about “Orwell is a…” The only offensive word is the one that follows, so leaving it as “Orwell is a [snipped]” seems more fair. (Next time, I’ll just use “jerk,” BTW.) Once again, apologies all around.
Don’t you think Mother Nature is telling “climate scientist” you don’t know so much after all. “Do you think you can control me by controlling the burning of fossil fuel?”
I do not know.
I wonder.
What if?
Words, phrases never to be uttered by “experts”
The team, twists, torques, rotates to avoid the obvious.
Insufficient data to support over enthusiastic claims.
We do not know.
Does not help the Great Cause.
Oh Gavin, Michael, the longer you bluster, the greater my rage.
Your stupidity has had sever consequences.
This foolish certainty is expensive, it frees dumb politicians from responsibility.
On the listings,
The list of all things attributed to global warming, will soon be shorter than the list of reasons the consensus was “mistaken”.
Whither the pause.
Coincidence is not actually a hypothesis. It tells us nothing about the science.
Suppose people observed that drinking water from ponds and puddles often produces dysentry. You could come up with a hypothesis that there is something in the water which leads to disease, or if you are Gavin you could say it is a coincidence.
At best, “coincidence” purports to claim there is no connection between the two. so it could be taken as the null hypothesis. In climate, there isn’t even that fig leaf, because it is tantamount to saying there is no connection between the current temperature stasis and computer model predictions. Such a statement, on reflection, is illogical, because computer models do not predict such a stasis, so it makes no sense to say that it is a coincidence whilst asserting that models must be correct.
If the models are correct there can’t be a stasis, whether by coincidence or not, unless the models are incomplete, in which case – they are incorrect.
He used the words “coincidence” but the following word displays more accurately what he meant the cause to be: “conspiracy”.
it’s all due to a conspiracy, otherwise the Earth would have already fried.