From ETH Zurich –Why global warming is taking a break
The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

Global warming is currently taking a break: whereas global temperatures rose drastically into the late 1990s, the global average temperature has risen only slightly since 1998 – surprising, considering scientific climate models predicted considerable warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate sceptics used this apparent contradiction to question climate change per se – or at least the harm potential caused by greenhouse gases – as well as the validity of the climate models. Meanwhile, the majority of climate researchers continued to emphasise that the short-term ‘warming hiatus’ could largely be explained on the basis of current scientific understanding and did not contradict longer term warming.
Researchers have been looking into the possible causes of the warming hiatus over the past few years. For the first time, Reto Knutti, Professor of Climate Physics at ETH Zurich, has systematically examined all current hypotheses together with a colleague. In a study published in the latest issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers conclude that two important factors are equally responsible for the hiatus.
El Niño warmed the Earth
One of the important reasons is natural climate fluctuations, of which the weather phenomena El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific are the most important and well known. “1998 was a strong El Niño year, which is why it was so warm that year,” says Knutti. In contrast, the counter-phenomenon La Niña has made the past few years cooler than they would otherwise have been.
Although climate models generally take such fluctuations into account, it is impossible to predict the year in which these phenomena will emerge, says the climate physicist. To clarify, he uses the stock market as an analogy: “When pension funds invest the pension capital in shares, they expect to generate a profit in the long term.” At the same time, they are aware that their investments are exposed to price fluctuations and that performance can also be negative in the short term. However, what finance specialists and climate scientists and their models are not able to predict is when exactly a short-term economic downturn or a La Niña year will occur.
Longer solar cycles
According to the study, the second important reason for the warming hiatus is that solar irradiance has been weaker than predicted in the past few years. This is because the identified fluctuations in the intensity of solar irradiance are unusual at present: whereas the so-called sunspot cycles each lasted eleven years in the past, for unknown reasons the last period of weak solar irradiance lasted 13 years. Furthermore, several volcanic eruptions, such as Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland in 2010, have increased the concentration of floating particles (aerosol) in the atmosphere, which has further weakened the solar irradiance arriving at the Earth’s surface.
The scientists drew their conclusions from corrective calculations of climate models. In all climate simulations, they looked for periods in which the El Niño/La Niña patterns corresponded to the measured data from the years 1997 to 2012. With a combination of over 20 periods found, they were able to arrive at a realistic estimate of the influence of El Niño and La Niña. They also retroactively applied in the model calculations the actual measured values for solar activity and aerosol concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. Model calculations corrected in this way match the measured temperature data much more closely.
Incomplete measured data
The discrepancy between the climate models and measured data over the past 16 years cannot solely be attributed to the fact that these models predict too much warming, says Knutti. The interpretation of the official measured data should also be critically scrutinised. According to Knutti, measured data is likely to be too low, since the global average temperature is only estimated using values obtained from weather stations on the ground, and these do not exist everywhere on Earth. From satellite data, for example, scientists know that the Arctic region in particular has become warmer over the past years, but because there are no weather stations in that area, there are measurements that show strong upward fluctuations. As a result, the specified average temperature is too low.
Last year, British and Canadian researchers proposed an alternative temperature curve with higher values, in which they incorporated estimated temperatures from satellite data for regions with no weather stations. If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar.
Warming to recommence
Despite the warming hiatus, Knutti is convinced there is no reason to doubt either the existing calculations for the climate activity of greenhouse gases or the latest climate models. “Short-term climate fluctuations can easily be explained. They do not alter the fact that the climate will become considerably warmer in the long term as a result of greenhouse gas emissions,” says Knutti. He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.
Literature reference
Huber M, Knutti R: Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nature Geoscience, online publication 17 August 2014, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2228
If temperatures are manipulated to imply a.g.w. theory proof and generate trillions of poor people’s dollars for healing the planet by funding and windfalls on wall street that would be a good place to invest your your retirement money.
The trick is to get out at exactly the right time before it crumbles into it’s despicable fraudulent Madoff mess.
Wait a minute.
So now they are down to ONE point showing a trend? What next? No data points make a trend? it is only logical.
Pamela says
Best summation I have read in a while
Thanks
I thought that the Warmist Modelers were convinced of the impotence of the solar factor [you could call it Solar ED] — we’ve regularly been told that the only radiative forcing terms are: positive from increasing greenhouse gases and negatively from volcanic aerosols
Now Prof Knuti offers scientific viagra to the power of sunlight to influence the climate
Well if they want the sauce for the goose then they’ve got to have the sauce for the proverbial male geese as well — Modern Solar Maximum — perhaps that increase in solar activity since the Dalton Minimum might explain the warming trend in the past 100+ years?
More science!
“From satellite data, for example, scientists know that the Arctic region in particular has become warmer over the past years, but because there are no weather stations in that area, there are measurements that show strong upward fluctuations. As a result, the specified average temperature is too low.”
Barrow Alaska weather station…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/met/brw_met_english.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow,_Alaska
Barrow … is the largest city of the North Slope Borough in the U.S. state of Alaska and is located above the Arctic Circle.
Pamela Gray says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:39 am
El Nado means Swimming.
IMO, it’s not just TSI but also its spectral composition (since most of the variation is in the UV range of the spectrum) & the various modulating forces which rule insolation, such as orbital & rotational mechanics, plus solar magnetic activity, which affects cloud formation.
But glad to see you recognize some role for solar cycles.
My nomination for quote of the week comes from Mark and and two Cats. ‘Beat to fit. Paint to match’. Brilliant!.
Sorry – my comment was meant for another thread (moved…).
Taphonomic says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:09 am
““When pension funds invest the pension capital in shares, they expect to generate a profit in the long term.” At the same time, they are aware that their investments are exposed to price fluctuations and that performance can also be negative in the short term.”
Brilliant! A climate scientist uses the expectations of pension funds as an analog for global warming models. Perhaps he is unaware that massive numbers of pension funds are going belly up? Additionally, while he correctly notes that pension fund performance can also be negative in the short term he fails to note that performance can be negative in the long term, too. Some stocks (Solyndra anyone?) go bankrupt.
*******************
Pension funds are not an analog for climate models. In addition to going belly up, pension funds can change the factors that impact performance: they can sell underperforming stocks and buy others. Climate models [should be] constrained by real world variables: tsi, co2, etc. you can’t sell your position in co2 and double down on methane!
Frank K. says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
Map of Arctic stations doesn’t include wandering “North Pole” recorder, nor frequent observations from subs surfacing at the Pole:
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
Now these two quotes are illuminating:
immediately followed by:
How can one claim that the “current scientific understanding” can explain the hiatus if they are still “looking into the possible causes”? Doesn’t scientific understanding include a tested hypothesis and not just an assertion?
In affect, this release is saying “We’re scientists. By our mere utterance, this makes it scientific understanding”.
Could this cause delay effects of low solar activity cycle 24?
vukcevic says:
Its implications can be viewed in the light of the NASA’s Themis satellite discovery, as contained in the key statement:
”For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway..”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/
Is cycles even enhance the Earth’s magnetic field, the stronger the current in the ionosphere?
“This study has focused on ionospheric electric currents flowing on the nigh side at low and
mid latitudes. Their magnetic field signatures cannot be neglected by main and crustal
magnetic field modellers. These are in particular small- and larger-scale pressure gradient and
gravity-driven currents.”
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/FR_20943_Swarm_Iono.pdf
Sorry. Commented in wrong post thread.
It should be noted that the delay cooling effect occurs at midnight. To the south was visible right away. In Cycle 25 solar polarity turn away.
So what !
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0162fdd74ba3970d-pi
Professor Nutty says “……..If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar……”
And someone is paying for this ‘research’?
Sadly, that someone is us, but at least we can console ourselves that this is typical ‘climate science’ at its very best.
I would love to see them apply their adjustment of solar activity to the previous 150 years as well as to just the previous 16. My guess is that the adjustment they needed to recreate global warming that is in line with models over the last 16 because of low solar activity would eliminate global warming over the previous 150 years. Or at least it would be a warming rate that is not “acceptable” because it poses no serious threat to the planet, humanity, or Gaia.
Hang them by their own petard.
The writer says: He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.
I suppose I could say my dog might bite my neighbor, only that I don’t have a dog or a neighbor.
First it was settled, then it settled some more, then over the last 18 years it continuing settling so now it is finally settled. So from this new settled base it will surely rise as expected, that is settled.
With the AMO and PDO both in the cooling phases of their cycles and Solar Cycle 24 as low as it is, the cooling has been predicted by some to become `statistically significant’ sometime over the next 2 years or so.
We can expect the present 31 excuses to be revisited, revised, and refreshed with `adjustments’ and maybe many more added. I can predict `Warming will resume shortly’ will become a the chorus.
Excuse #32: A string of longer solar cycles.
Excuse #33: Aw, smack! CO2 has nothing to do with it.
“He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.”
What he is saying is that models do not reflect shorter term variances outside their averaged longer term values. This does not address the corollary of how much warming was due to the same shorter term variances on the positive side of their longer term averages.
If you apply both sides to the record, then current values go up, but past values go down. You are left with the same as before, inasmuch the rising trend THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CO2 is less than that modeled previously
Models would match the record in this case because the models have significantly reduced the pure CO2 component. The Hansen slightly-above Scenario C would be the one to reflect reality.
You can’t explain away the hiatus as a natural feature without downward limiting the forcing of CO2 + water vapour. CAGW does not survive by invoking nature into the reason for the hiatus, other than un-natural levels of clouds: cloud variability is the only natural explanation of the pause that doesn’t flatline CAGW. (Human produced aerosols are the only non-natural explanation.)
Adding in the polar areas doesn’t mean the world is warmer, and so still modeled correctly, as the warming is supposed to be globally seen: what this trick would do is to reinforce the regionality of “global” warming, and thus put the onus on models to reflect the rest of the world better.
For the first time, Reto Knutti, Professor of Climate Physics at ETH Zurich, has systematically examined all current hypotheses together with a colleague.
Did he find his colleague to be sane ?
As I have said for years. “Political Correctness is simply an euphemism for ‘not completely correct’; in other words ‘Wrong’.”
There is a large political investment in having the models and data agree.
There is a large scientific investment in having the data tell us when our models are wrong.
Here’s a comment on Knutti from 17 months ago: