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

28 Feb: Bloomberg: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Warming Pause Doesn’t Reverse Scientific View on Climate
“Our expectation as scientist always was to see very complex changes in the average temperature of the planet, and that’s exactly what we see,” Benjamin Santer, research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, said at a briefing today. “The key point is that the stasis, slowdown as people have termed it over the last 15 years, does not fundamentally invalidate our understanding of the human effects on climate.”…
“There will always be cold nights and cold days, but what we expect is that they will be rarer and rarer,” Fung (Inez Fung, professor of atmospheric science at the University of California, Berkley) said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/warming-pause-doesn-t-reverse-scientific-view-on-climate.html
Excuse me but isn’t the point of interest that they are conceding that the models failed? That is the first step to creating a new model. Most of the hokus pokus is a search for another explanation. If the model shows no skill in prediction drop it! Stop annoying people.
Schmidt et al are correct. The “pause” is due to incredible coincidence that the models failed to foresee. What they left unsaid is not only the pause but also all the warming and cooling can also be explained by incredible coincidences. The natural causes of this incredible coincidence did not start only in 1998.
“Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s.”
These have been operating for billions of years and they still cannot predict volcanic eruptions (except days before the event) and the uncertainty in aerosols is higher than CO2 forcing. Not to mention clouds and ocean circulations.
Because it was never warming. Well, except in the cities where all the observations were taken…lol
It only stopped warming after they had robbed everybody of their land, then it went back to normal.
hint hint, wink wink
[snip . . mod]
Folks, as far as I understand it the “coincidence” is that all the negative influences were all active at the same time. The cumulative effect being enough to overwhelm the anthropogenic. Of course the existence of the negative influences was denied until they could no longer be ignored and were then in fact required to explain the pause. The dishonesty in this science is extremely dangerous. Climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind, it is just that it is not the warming component that is dangerous it is the cooling. With the current science we will not know about cooling until it is too late.
These three graphs also show an considerable co-incidence that needs explaining.
AMO
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-reconstructed-monthly-nao-rnao-monthly-anomalies.png
PDO
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-hadcrut-overlay.png
and Climate
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-filters1.png
all marching along hand in hand for centuries! Not just more recently, like after the industrial revolution and later. Since the middle ages! 1400-1500 and around then. How does that stack up?
Maybe explanation #7 has a similar idea to the 2007 paper of Ferenc M. Miskolczi Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
From his conclusions on page 35 :-
So there is also Miskolczi’s explanation #0: Carbon dioxide has zero effect on the climate.
jauntycyclist says:
February 28, 2014 at 3:05 am
someone needs to ask them at what point will they give up? What is the final barrier that would make them reconsider? When does the experiment fail?
When the grant money dries up.
Wow, Gavin becomes an AGW denier. “[Coincidence]” is the same thing as natural variation.
For the last 3 million years tbe earth is in an ice age… and still is. Within that age are periods of glaciation and interglaciation, colder and warmer respectivel. We have been in interglaciation for about 12,000 years (a warmer period withing the ice age) when and if the glaciation returns, 1/2 the USA will be under a sheet of ice as much as 1 mile thick!!!. If and when the the ice age ends the earth will return to its oldrr state (pre-3 millon yrs ago) in that state the avg temperature is about 5 – 8 deg C !!!!! I hope this uts all this talk of climate change into perspective and points out the folly that assumes if the climate change .. it must be humans doing it!!!
#11: karma’s my bitch
@Jimbo…” If only we had the CMIP5 models back in the day. It could have been used to good effect. Did the oceans eat the global warming back then too? ”
That’s easy enough to do. Unless of course the IPCC threw that data away too. They could just run the old data against the new modeling tool. Wonder why they haven’t if it’s so good? Maybe back testing isn’t in the IPCC s best interest. Sort of like back testing for the MWP or the LIA.
#1: Natural variability is larger than allowed for in the climate model driven view of things.
Climate models do NOT account for the observed short term variability in the data series to date.
UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GIS
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
AMO/NAO
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/amo/
PDO
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/pdo/
It’s worth notice that ‘The pause’ does not exist:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975/plot/gistemp/from:1975/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2001/trend
And that such a pause exists since ’70
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1994.5/plot/rss/from:1979.5/to:1994.5/trend
Slice: There is little point in comparing trends over periods that are different.
This is a true picture of the data since 1979
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
Article translated into French and published here :
http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/03/02/158162-climat-le-top-10-des-raisons-de-la-pause-de-15-ans-du-rechauffement
For the full list of Anthony’s articles in French :
http://www.contrepoints.org/author/anthony-watts
[Merci beaucoup. 8<) Mod]
There’s only one reason why the globe hasn’t “warmed”: CO2 is not a climate driver. Full stop.