Eric Worrall writes: The Sydney Morning Herald has a hilarious article claiming that one day, long embarrassing pauses in the global temperature record will be a ‘thing of the past’.
According to Nicola Maher, a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming.” … By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said.
Excerpts:
Global temperatures have largely plateaued during the past 15 years as natural variability – including oceans absorbing more heat and volcanic activity – have acted to stall warming at the planet’s surface.
However, such “hiatuses” are increasingly unlikely if carbon emissions continue on their present trajectory, and will be “a thing of the past” by the century’s end, according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“From about 2030, it’s highly unlikely that we will get one of these cooling decades,” said Nicola Maher, a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper. “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming.”
The researchers used about 30 models to simulate different events, including volcanic eruptions of the size of Krakatau, the Indonesian island that erupted in 1883 with an explosion so loud it was heard almost 5000 kilometres away.
By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said.
The full story is here
When I first read the article, I thought it was a spoof of the infamous “snowfalls will be a thing of the past” claim – but no, these are serious deep greens, trying to stoke the dying embers of global warming alarm.
UNSW is also the home of Chris Turney, lead idiot of the ship of fools.
The paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060527/abstract
Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries
Nicola Maher, Alexander Sen Gupta and Matthew H. England
Abstract
The latest generation of climate model simulations are used to investigate the occurrence of hiatus periods in global surface air temperature in the past and under two future warming scenarios. Hiatus periods are identified in three categories: (i) those due to volcanic eruptions, (ii) those associated with negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and (iii) those affected by anthropogenically released aerosols in the mid-twentieth century. The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption. We further demonstrate that most nonvolcanic hiatuses across Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase.
==================================
Note that one of the co-authors, Matthew England is one of the “scared scientists” who wrote:
MATTHEW ENGLAND
Oceanographer, Climate scientist,
University of NSW, Sydney
FEAR: CLIMATE INDUCED GLOBAL CONFLICT
Accelerated warming and expansion of water in the oceans, and increased melting rates of glaciers and ice caps are expected to increase sea levels by a metre or more over the next 100 years. This will pose a decisive threat to the existence of human settlements, infrastructures and industries across the world that are close to the shore lines. Those environmental degradations will aggravate global conflict as tens of millions of people migrate and their food supplies become threatened.
We need to understand that the cost of solving the problem is so much less than the cost of dealing with it down the track; that cost is going to be huge for future generations. Not dealing with it is selfish, short-sighted, narrow minded and obscene. It represents such a level of injustice as those that are going to be impacted are not playing a role in the decisions that are being made now.
Their models, which run simulations against other model predictions, predict that the predicted heat will overwhelm the predicted cooling.
I predict they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I never thought I would hear another prediction by climaty folks like Dr.Viner’s (snow will be a thing of the past). A weird sociologically politically incorrect puzzle to me is why all the recent papers coming from Univ. students are from women? Is this a stage in the cycle of this discipline? I’ve noted this several times before. Cli Sci used to be largely a mannly pursuit.
It’s not a Cli Sci thing It is a University thing.
For the UK the statistics show that Universities are becoming increasingly distaff.
I guess it is the same in Australia.
The exceptions are the physical sciences, computer sciences, maths and engineering. But Environmental studies is surely nearer to biology and the social sciences, no?
“While most areas in the Northern Hemisphere will likely experience less snowfall throughout a season, the study concludes that extreme snow events will still occur, even in a future with significant warming.”
– MIT press release, 8/27/14
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-snowstorms-0827
regarding
O’Gorman, P. A.
Contrasting responses of mean and extreme snowfall to climate change
Nature 512, 416-418 (2014)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/pdf/nature13625.pdf
Could be. There’s a case for it. But the climate system has unpredictable wrinkles. EWe won’t have a good handle on it for a century.
Right. And with significant warming expected this century, we will have to make decisions about what to do (or not do) in the face of considerable uncertainty. It is the nature of the problem.
“And with significant warming expected this century”
Significant warming projected by models; models that have failed and continue to fail to reflect reality.
“While most areas in the Northern Hemisphere will likely experience less snowfall throughout a season, the study concludes that extreme snow events will still occur, even in a future with significant warming.”
– MIT press release, 8/27/14
………………….
Except that it hasn’t happened. Snowfall is flat or up. Snowpacks in the west are generally trending higher.
Studies conclude things. Reality concludes things. Better if they match.
“Snowpacks in the west are generally trending higher.”
Where are those data? Because this presentation says otherwise:
http://www.slideshare.net/ecowest/eco-west-climate-trends-snowpack-white
Sonicsguy says:
Right. And with significant warming expected this century, we will have to make decisions about what to do (or not do) . . . .”
Asia is saying, “Who’s ‘We,’ white man?”
Guys and Gals I have been around this blog longer then any of you (judging by the posting names). My seniority in both time on the blog and age gives me the right to announce Stan’s law. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS. I’m looking at you SG.
I said…
“Snowpacks in the west are generally trending higher.”
Sonic said…
Where are those data? Because this presentation says otherwise:
http://www.slideshare.net/ecowest/eco-west-climate-trends-snowpack-white
………………………………
I looked at it more closely and I think the preponderance of data supports Sonic on this one. I recently read a SNOTEL trend study for the Pacific Northwest that went back to 1984. All the trends were higher.
However, many other studies since dating to the 1950’s generally show slightly declining snowpacks in the American West.
The data is not clear cut for every region every time period but I have a hard time sticking with the claim that …
“Snowpacks in the west are generally trending higher.”
Rutgers has some nice data on snow cover…
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/
If MIT had published that in 2004, they would have been hooted down as skeptics. Let’s discuss a little science per AGW. When it snows or rains the latent heat that is released is retained in the atmosphere. Where does that heat go, and why isn’t it melting the snow almost as soon as it hits the ground? Moves off? Where? In fact except for local events only, it shouldn’t snow at all. Do the math on the release of heat on 30 cm of snow over several hundred sq km. It doesn’t get boiled off into space per AGW and it isn’t getting sucked up by the oceans right away is it? I’m just pointing out that extreme snowfalls at the present levels of co2 should not and can not happen.
It took them long enough to recognize there even was a plateau or an hiatus and, of course, some don’t even want to face that. Some want to even rewrite old temperatures downward so that there is less of a plateau.
Its a theory. It needs to be tested. Just be an objective person and face the facts. It should not be a religion where the dogma cannot even be questioned.
You know when I was a boy I would build models, I wasn’t very good at building models, but I built them anyway so I could play with them afterwards. I would pretend that the models were real ships or planes, but I alway knew they weren’t even close to real ships or planes.
For some reason these people can’t seem to tell the difference between a climate model and the real climate.
Congratulations Tom on a great comment.
Seconded!
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
– George Box, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces (1987)
“Models are always wrong, but skillful — you have more information than you did otherwise.”
– Gavin Schmidt, TED talk (2014)
But the models aren’t at ‘skillful’, that’s point. Are you sure you taking the whole thing seriously?
There are now ( i lost count) dozens of papers trying to explain why the models are failing. What’s you’re favorite explanation?
Look at the models Gavin Schmidt presents in his talk, and then tell me the models aren’ skillful. They reproduce atmospheric features and changes very clearly. Manabe’s 1967 model predicted the average temperature of the surface. Can your model do that?
Still trolling huh.
The models are not reproducing surface temperature trends properly, which lest we forget, is why we care about the darn models in the first place. Properly speaking, we can reject at the 95% confidence level that between 15 and 17 models in the IPCC ensemble correctly model the observed Earth trends.
“The models are not reproducing surface temperature trends properly.”
How good do the models have to be? (Give us a number.)
How do models know how to account for ENSOs, volcanoes, solar irradiance changes and the exact emissions pathway?
PS: Stop the name calling.
Stop the name calling? Don’t you mean, stop the name calling you dirty d*nier?
Your posts are on this thread are numerous, all over the place in topic and largely specious in nature. I’m not calling you names, I’m calling you a troll, because what you are doing is called trolling. You’re posting with no evidence purpose except to distract from and derail discussion on the thread’s topic.
Mark Bofill
“I’m not calling you names, I’m calling you a troll ”
Mr Bofill, “troll” is a name, and you are in fact calling Mr SonicsGuy names.
Try addressing the facts and the logic instead of calling him a “troll”
“because what you are doing is called trolling.”
I’m presenting the science as best I understand it. And doing so politely. Calling me a troll is, as it always is, an attempt to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging them.
Edward Richardson, the wingman, am I right?
If you two have some problem with calling things by their right names, I don’t care. If you think that simply because SonicsGuy feels like talking about whatever the heck he wants to talk about that that means people have to address his issues, I still don’t care.
You show a default disrespect of the readership here by bombarding the thread with your garbage, and if getting called on it bothers you, good.
Can your model do that?
We’re playing this game again. Can yours?
I’m not claiming to have a model which can, with reasonable accuracy, simulate the observed climate system. Climate scientists do, and these claims can be tested. The result of these tests show that models show no skill in simulating the observed surface temperature change for exactly the period where greenhouse gases should have the strongest effect on surface temperatures.
The big question is now, what could be the explanation for the mismatch between models and reality. What’s yours? You have about several dozens to choose from.
On a general note.
You started out by claiming the pause isn’t real anyways, so there’s nothing to explain. You’ve then switched positions a number of times, reiterating the usual boilerplates we heard so many times in last 2+ years.
It’s pointless and waste of time to try and have any meaningful discussion when the goal posts are constantly being being moved.
.
Mr Bofill,
..
You show a default disrespect of the readership by resorting to ad hominem name calling. Most readers of these comments recognize this fact.
“Climate scientists do, and these claims can be tested.”
Climate models don’t make predictions. How would they know what to assume for coming ENSOs and volcanoes and changes in solar irradiance? Or exactly what emissions pathway the world will follow?
“You started out by claiming the pause isn’t real anyways, so there’s nothing to explain.”
I’ve consistently said “slowdown,” not a “pause.” I don’t see any evidence of a “pause,” except in one of 7 datasets.
“How good do the models have to be? (Give us a number.)”
Observations within 2 standard deviations of the forecast would be a start.
I’ve consistently said “slowdown,” not a “pause.” I don’t see any evidence of a “pause,” except in one of 7 datasets.
Doesn’t matter what you call it, but you’re claim is nonsense. I don’t know what you do when you calculate your trends, but your numbers are off.
Except for Cowtan & Way and UAH, all other data sets show a non-statistically significant temperature change over the the last 15 years, using 1999 as the start date. The trends are practically flat for this century, including Cowtan & Way.
If you want to argue again that the period is too short, go ahead. But then don’t make any statements as to whether the surface is still warming or not.
Climate models don’t make predictions. How would they know what to assume for coming ENSOs and volcanoes and changes in solar irradiance? Or exactly what emissions pathway the world will follow?
You really need to stop with the circular arguments. If the models are doing just fine in tracking the observations over the last 15+ years, there is no need for an explanation. But then all the papers trying to explain the mismatch between models and observation start out from a completely wrong premise.
Despite the continued increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in this century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus of global warming, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity.
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/33072/Kosaka&Xie2013.pdf?sequence=1
Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming.
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2106-incl-SI.pdf
Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models. Natural variability, a reduced radiative forcing, a smaller warming response to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and coverage bias in the observations have been identified as potential causes. However, the explanations of the so-called ‘warming hiatus’ remain fragmented and the implications for long-term temperature projections are unclear.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2228.html
___________________________________________________________________
Five years and counting, when do you think it is time to finally admit the fundamental and systematic flaws in climate models?
The pause in warming is real enough, but it’s just temporary, they (climate scientists) 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.
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,”.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Kerr.Science.2009.pdf
Gavin says skillful. He doesn’t seem to have any WORRIES NOW. This is what happens when you dig a hole in 2007.
“Two important characteristics of maps [or models] should be noticed. A map [or model] is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.” – Alfred Korzybski
Unfortunately the climate scientists are not good at building models or maps.
It is an impossible and futile task after all, to model the climate that is. Why?
Due to the climate systems being systems that generate INTERNAL randomness it will NEVER be possible to predict climate systems.
The nature of all systems that generate internal randomness is that the only way to see what happens next is to observe them in real time.
This discovery was made by Stephen Wolfram in his ground breaking book, A New Kind Of Science; see Chapter 2 for the mathematical (and computer science) proof.
All climate models will always fail due to this newly discovered INTERNAL randomness.
Then there is the external randomness that comes from Chaos Theory.
That’s two kinds of randomness, internal randomness and chaos randomness, that mean that it is not possible to come up with an accurate prediction of the Earth’s climate.
The only way to know what the climate of the Earth is going to do is to observe and measure it as it actually happens in real time.
As a result climate models will always fail due to first principles of chemistry, physics, computer science, mathematics, and due to the fundamental laws of Nature.
brought to you by the same people that didn’t see this one coming…….
Oh, ‘CARBON EMISSIONS’? Dark sooty and dirty CARBON EMISSIONS? Or does the good DOCTORATE mean CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS? You know, the virtually odorless, colorless plant loving gas essential for life on earth? I detest these people.
“Carbon” is the relevant term, because it is the carbon atoms that cycle around in the Earth’s carbon system, as CO2, maybe later CH4,or then H2CO3 or CaCO3 after weathering. That’s why scientists refer to “carbon.” Of course, in emissions and in the atmosphere it’s mostly CO2, which can easily be calculated given the carbon emissions or amounts.
I agree that it was clear that Carbon meant CO2. Well done for keeping a level tone.
But I do question how CO2 can be easily calculated given “the carbon emissions or amounts”?
How do we know the sequestration into reservoirs (oceans, trees, soils) and on the other hand the other natural emissions as well?
This may be off topic.
All I meant is that carbon emissions can be converted into CO2 emissions by the ratio of their molecular weights, 44/12.
You’re right, determining where the carbon goes is still very difficult, and science does not haver a good handle on it yet. Estimates exist, of course, but it’s a very difficult problem with a lot of uncertainty. And likely will be for the foreseeable future.
M Courtney August 28, 2014 at 7:43 am
“…But Environmental studies is surely nearer to biology and the social sciences, no?”
——————-
Environmental studies would seem to be nearer Marketing or Creative Writing.
Very droll.
But I was actually (for once) not being cynical when I wrote that.
My thought was that the motivation and tastes of the applicants would be similar.
In practise – you are right though.
This seems to be following the arc of other prophetic pop social manias. The early days of unchallenged credibility, lofty rhetoric, prophecies of doom right around the corner. Then time goes around the corner and the prophecies fail and the excuses begin. This article is a good example of the excuse making phase.
Also known as the bargaining phase in the stages of grief, soon to be followed by depression.
lol. Go over to ClimateChange Nation (which is run, allegedly, by ‘climate scientists’ but is a 501c3- nice money machine iow) and see the koolaid dealers dispensing their wisdom.
Good grief.Are they giving Phds out on the internet now? What needs to be done is to shut down ALL non-scientific courses,except the true sciences(i.e. medicine,engineering,physics,chemistry,etc )
Now that’s a bit philistine.
We need better universities not narrower universities.
Let’s keep (most) of the same subjects and just let fewer people study there.
And children in England will have never seen snow . . .
They know they are liars.
Indeed for they alone, outside of the skeptical community are most privy to evidence of hockey stick team fraud. Not mistakes, but brazen and outlandish fraud. Acceptance of graphs of virtual sea level being labeled “sea level.” In a real sense they are self-interested investors in Enron writ large as the crony capitalist progressive party in politics.
I wonder what he thinks happened during the Andean-Saharan ice age 460 to 430 million years ago wiht CO2 levels > than 10 times present levels?
The Sun’s irradiance increases by 1% about every 110 million years. So 4.5 Myrs ago it was about 4% less. At the surface, that’s 14 W/m2, assuming the same planetary albedo (which is unlikely, since the continents were in different places and of different sizes).
Compare that to GHG forcing today: only 2.9 W/m2, according to NOAA, with aerosols at about -1 W/m2.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
They know they are getting away with it.
They get paid well for the lies and they only ask,, “Whats no to like?”
How foolish Sonicsguy is to be denying the hiatus Maher even admits.
Maher is also essentially saying that even if the hiatus or cooling continues for another 16 years to 2030,
representing a 33 YEAR length of time that exceeds the so-called AGW warming of late 70s to late 90s,
he somehow confident that pauses are likely to be a thing of the past?
How obtuse is that?
Imagine the year 2020, with still no warming and how grand mal climate science will be if the Mahers and Manns are still coming up with tall tales.
Will Maher revise his 2030 idiocy?
What difference does it make?
These Children of the Corn climate scientists will never stop the cult mission they are on.
The main Greenland ice core destroys his argument:
http://i61.tinypic.com/2cxbxw4.jpg
Given how Arctic temperature dominates debate, this temperature proxy going back thousands of years that shows a warmer past means their alarmist claims fails even the laugh test. They all know this by now too, for by what mechanism could they by now still not know it?
How does this lessen concern about AGW in any way? I don’t see that it does, just because it’s been warming in the past. Everyone knows that. The relevant question is, can we (and the other species) adapt to the changes taking place?
sonicsguy,
Somewhere in your mind was a critical thinking skill at one time. Find it and redeploy it. Think: Since the predictions by the climate hypesters about today are failing , and they are fibbing about the [past]- it was much warmer with no global catastrophe- then perhaps your blind acceptance of their apocalyptic claptrap is not something they deserve. Even Richard Betts admits the GCMs are worthless for policy making. You are being played for a fool. Why tolerate it?
hunter: Define “fail” as it relates to a model.
It doesn’t matter if the climate was warmer in the past — it matters if we and other species can adapt to the changes talking place. Serious extinctions have occurred in episodes of past climate change, and ours is changing significally faster than those.
“then perhaps your blind acceptance of their apocalyptic claptrap.”
Who said I see a coming apocalypse? I certainly didn’t.
“and ours is changing significally faster than those”
Where are you getting this information from? You keep claiming that you’re presenting the “science” as best as you understand it, but you’ve made it rather clear that your understanding is sorely lacking. Individuals are trying to help you on here but you’re making it rather difficult with your combative stance and constant gainsay. You also keep asking people to prove your numbers wrong. That’s not how it works. The onus is on you to prove that they are right.
“The relevant question is, can we (and the other species) adapt to the changes taking place?”
……………………………………………………………………………………………
If humans never walked the earth, temps would be perhaps 0.5 deg C cooler and sea level 2″ lower.
Can we adapt to those kind of changes in 60 years ? Of course. Simple. Easy.
In fact, we had those same kind of changes from 1908-1941 when fossil fuels were not a factor. Other than a couple of world wars, the earth fare fine.
We’ve had far worse temp changes in urban areas from UHI. Yet the humans thrive and so do the urban flora and fauna
The natural systems are far more robust than given credit. Where do we get the idea that everything is so fragile? I think the opposite is true. Nature evolved to this point by shaking out the weak and those that can’t adapt. Most that have made it this far are remarkably resilient.
In fairness to Sonicsguy he has consistently put his case that the world’s temperature hasn’t frozen still.
He just misses that the pause is relative to the expected warming in the models.
Everyone (even the IPCC) acknowledges that the pause is real, relative to the expected warming in the models.
But Sonicsguy is talking about something else.
What is the “expected warming” in the models?
How did the models know what to assume for ENSOs and volcanoes and solar irradiance changes?
M Courtney
Your attempt to provide “fairness to Sonicsguy” is an error because this is the second WUWT thread that he/she/they/it has trolled.
As Mark Bofill observed upthread, this troll ONLY attempts disruption, and the troll’s response to your attempt at “fairness” demonstrates that.
If this thread is to be saved – not lost as the other has been – then don’t feed the troll.
Richard
Richard,
Regarding not feeding the troll, you are correct as usual. I’ll try to behave. :> The business about the GCM’s not being falsifiable somewhere on this thread was just too much for me, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Regards sir.
I am beside myself with joy that Richard Courtney agrees with Stan’s Law: Don’t feed the trolls. When I wrote that I was not aware that this particular troll had disrupted another thread. I seem to recall that unthread the moderators warned him/her/it for posting from a non valid E-mail.
Then tell me which of my numbers are wrong. Please.
The issue is not that your numbers are wrong. 15 years ago just happens to be in the middle of a steep La Nina. If we choose WTI which combines 4 data sets, then the time for no warming is actually since January 2001 or 13 years and 7 months.
Werner, you are cherry picking — choosing a starting date to give the result you want, whether it’s climatologically relevant or not. It’s classic cherry picking.
And you never address questions of statistical significance. Ever.
You just made the clearly false claim: “Serious extinctions have occurred in episodes of past climate change, and ours is changing significally faster than those.”
Both the proven falsity of the latest Mann promoted Marcott 2013 hockey stick and the above Greenland ice core temperature record make a mockery of your naked lie about rate of change, as if fraud created real facts just because peer review has been corrupted by activists. There is no blade in any of the input data of the latest promotion by the well known hockey stick team at the center of climate alarm. You know this to be so! I could barely buy a better clown than you to disgrace climate alarm. What a gift to skepticism it is to have the scammy face of it so clearly exposed as you offer here.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Tingley, Martin P. and Peter Huybers. A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part 1: Development and applications to paleoclimate reconstruction problems. Journal of Climate, 2010
Please tell me what the point of your numbers is. Are you saying there’s really no pause so we should be alarmed about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere or are you just saying “this is the data I see, sorry to spoil your pause opinion”?
I would love to be able to pick a time where the slope is flat for 15 years on all 4 data sets, but that cannot be done. Starting with the most recent month, we can only go back to January 2001 to when the slope is negative.
As for your other point, I will repeat my reply above. (With the new reply feature, I know it is easy to miss a new reply.)
I “cover” error bars in my section 2. The latest for 95% significance is: UAH: March 1996; RSS: December 1992; Hadcrut4: November 1996; Hadsst3: August 1994; and GISS: October 1997. So the shortest time, GISS, is almost 17 years of no statistically significant warming.
““When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming.”
(rolling on the floor laughing my atmosphere off)
This article is just more pie in the sky. The article males all assumptions in addition to not looking at the data objectively which pretty much tells us AGW theory is wrong and is not currently happening nor will it in the future.
The excuses for the current pause they mention have no merit from anthropogenically released aerosols to volcanic activity. If one looks at the data showing volcanic aerosol optical thickness (I will try to send a chart later) one will see since the turn of this century it has been at very minimum levels in contrast to what they are suggesting.
In addition the basic premises AGW theory is based on have not happened which called for a more zonal atmospheric circulation and a lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator and less emissions of OLR out to space. Not to forget the pause in the global temperature rise which they did NOT call for.
In the meantime the stage is set for global cooling due to very weak solar conditions with the associated primary and secondary effects, the earth’s weakening magnetic field which will enhance solar effects, and Milankovitch Cycles which favor cooling now and for many years to come.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Here is the data which shows their claims are false.
“even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said. ….
Hubris, just total hubris that one is. Talk about tempting fate! Keep in mind that Krak was baby bro, with big bro being Tambora and big daddy being Toba. Pray that big daddy stays asleep.
Do they really think mankind’s contribution to a trace gas can overcome what nature can throw at us? Have they no sense of geological history at all?
History schmistory! They’ve got models!
“Do they really think mankind’s contribution to a trace gas can overcome what nature can throw at us?”
Not ANYTHING — like a supervolcanic eruption or a meteor or comet strike — but for large volcanoes, the answer is yes. Pinatubo only cooled the surface for about 2 years. Tambora perhaps a couple more. But those effects are temporary, whereas CO2-warming will take place essentially forever.
I’m willing to make 2 predictions:
1) CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don’t care about real pollutants much less CO2.
2) Temperatures will fall for the next 2 decades with or without volcanoes.
Why? Well there are scientists who have correctly forecast climate. You may want to look into the work of Dr Libby and Dr Easterbrook. Their models have been able to predict the current stop in warming. Their models have proven accurate for 30+ years in Dr Libby’s case and 12+ in Dr Easterbrook’s. Neither has CO2 as the main control and rely on natural cycles in climate. So far they are correct and the IPCC models wrong.
I’m not impressed by Easterbrook. He has made predictions that are already wrong. His entire department wrote a public statement that they disagreed with him.
“But those effects are temporary, whereas CO2-warming will take place essentially forever.”
Now you have my undivided attention. What a crock of B.S. The earth has had times of CO2 levels above 7,000ppm yet there has been NO RUN AWAY WARMING! This is where the alarmist crowd sends me over the edge. The Earths temp has fluctuated between 22 Deg C and 12 deg C average temp for eons. It has NEVER run away.
The rate of rise today is less than the historical rise.
I am curious how you are alive today with such dire levels of CO2 previously..? If we believed the rhetoric being spewed by alarmists, we should all be dead already or never have been alive.
Bill
Of course the so-called pause will end, to be followed by a downward trend as is typical of any complex cyclical behavior.
Oh, Nicola, as a Ph.D. candidate, you should be paying more attention to the literature about the history of CO2 concentrations throughout earth history and less attention to breathless predictions based on a minute change over a very brief period of time. Even a doubling of the current amount of CO2 would put us at a level that is less than 1/3 the average of 150 million years ago, but throughout that time, especially recently over the past 3 million years there have been dramatic 100,000 year “pauses” in warming. And the trend of the past five “pauses” and the past five warm periods in between has been to colder cold periods and cooler warm periods. Even in the current 10,000+ warm period, the trend in temperature has been downward for the past 7,000 years with the cool periods getting colder and the warm periods getting cooler.
Whatever it is you’re doing to get your Ph.D., it isn’t science.
What matters isn’t the absolute temperature, but our (and other species) ability to adapt to those changes (which are much faster than earlier periods of natural change).
Several economists have pointed out that taxing the economy to provide welfare to developing nations now will retard the economy enough to hinder exactly the hard science R@D that might allow adaptation and both geoengineering and low emissions energy advances. That future generations will be much richer in absolute terms and thus better able to pay to solve problems without causing huge hits to the economy. You are, after all, promoting artificially high energy prices, a directly damaging economic policy. Don’t think normal people don’t fully understand the deceptiveness of claims that high energy prices won’t hurt the poor and struggling people of the world. Only an emergency can thus justify it, and sorry, but it didn’t warm as predicted so there is no more excuse to not simply downgrade climate sensitivity in the models, eh? The big lie is that the measly greenhouse effect itself, the basic physics of it, that provides alarming predictions. No bigger lie was ever told. The destruction of integrity in scientific peer review alone represents a major threat to progress. Turning top journals into Stalinist lie factories is simply evil. And the Steig red Antarctica cover of Nature along with the media sensation of the bladeless Marcott 2013 hockey stick in Science means our culture has quite simply gone temporarily insane, for normal competent peer review is now proven to be lacking in our very top scientific journals, defended by nearly all of our scientific academies. Well that’s not historically sustainable, since new generations are now all exposed to an open Internet where false facts can and are successfully debunked. What’s so amazing is how terribly many people willfully ignore whistleblowing about false claims, yourself included. You have convinced nobody here today with your false facts, such as activist produced and pal reviewed Cowtan & Way, especially since it was Way himself who was revealed in secret forum statements to admit that Mann’s work was both bogus and also known to be bogus yet still promoted as being vindicated:
“MBH98 was not an example of someone using a technique with flaws and then as he learned better techniques he moved on… He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. Saying “I was wrong but when done right it gives close to the same answer” is no excuse. He never even said that but I’m just making a point. What happened was they used a brand new statistical technique that they made up and that there was no rationalization in the literature for using it. They got results which were against the traditional scientific communities view on the matters and instead of re-evaluating and checking whether the traditional statistics were valid (which they weren’t), they went on and produced another one a year later. They then let this HS be used in every way possible (including during the Kyoto protocol lead-up that resulted in canadian parliament signing the deal with many people ascribing their final belief in climate change being assured by the HS) despite knowing the stats behind it weren’t rock solid. Of course someone was going to come along and slam it. In the defense of the HS method they published things on RC like what I showed above where they clearly misrepresented the views of the foremost expert on PCA in atmospheric sciences who basically says that Mann’s stats were dubious.” – Robert Way
“That future generations will be much richer in absolute terms and thus better able to pay to solve problems without causing huge hits to the economy.”
The present is already much richer than the past (in the US, real per capita GDP is 3.0 times larger than it was in 1960). The US is easily rich enough to now generate its energy cleanly, and subsidize the poor who cannot afford that. The rest of the US can certainly afford it.
I expect people in 2068 will say the same thing: “Future generations will be much richer in absolute terms and thus better able to pay to solve problems without causing huge hits to the economy.” Why wouldn’t they?
Good grief. I guess the saying is true. Some things are so stupid you need a PhD to believe them.
No matter what reality does, they can’t leave their models. At what point do they finally recognize reality? Is it going to take full-on glaciation?
Somehow, I don’t think even that will do it.
Sadly, given the bleating over at The Economist over the latest “missing heat has been found” article in Science, I tend to agree with you.
How would you project future changes, if not with a model?
PS: Science is nothing *but* models…
For one thing, I would throw out a model that made incorrect forecasts. The model IS NOT reality.
Define “incorrect.”
“The model IS NOT reality.”
Everyone — absolutely everyone — knows this. So what?
Sure doesn’t seem that way.
If a model forecasts X and you get Y, you don’t get to keep saying that X is correct.
Back to my original question: At what point to you give up on the models? How much must reality diverge from the forecasts to accept that the models don’t work? If there are glaciers covering Ohio while CO2 is > 400ppm, would you then be willing to admit that the models were wrong?
“If a model forecasts X and you get Y, you don’t get to keep saying that X is correct.”
But that’s not what models do. They *project* X given assumptions A, and get Z.
Unless A is accurate, Z cannot be, except by chance.
Projections are not science, predictions are.
How do you predict future changes? Gain an understanding of the science and describe it mathematically in a way that is verifiable, testable and repeatable.
Reg Nelson wrote:
“Projections are not science, predictions are.”
Climate models can’t make predictions, because no one knows the future of ENSO, volcanoes, solar irradiance, PDOs and AMOs, the exact emissions pathway the world will take. Projections are the best that can be done.
[Please use a verifiable email address. Yours is bad. ~ mod.]
SonicsGuy, as TonyG says, when would you start (personally) thinking the models are no good?
Benzene is a hexagon. That’s not based on a model any more. Not at all. You can touch it now, with an atomic force microscope probe, even feel it with a haptic feedback stylus. No, your bold statement is false. Models yield to hard physical reality in all but the very limits of instrumentation such as the elusiveness of string theory. Science is no more than finding facts and patterns, no more than one day using Scotch tape to discover single layer graphite, no models being used at all, no assumptions being needed any more than you need a model to view blood cells under a microscope. You seem to be either a foolish cult member or a meter maid who has learned how to make meters run too fast, to your great bonus earning advantage.
SonicsGuy wrote:
“Climate models can’t make predictions, because no one knows the future of ENSO, volcanoes, solar irradiance, PDOs and AMOs, the exact emissions pathway the world will take. Projections are the best that can be done.”
If you can’t subject the models or their outputs to the scientific method then they are not science. They’re voodoo alchemical garbage. Thanks for confirming that science has nothing to do with it.
The problem is that public policy has been made all over the world based on models that now look biased toward warming. The argument seems to go like this: It’s warmer now than in the past and these models say it is going to warm out of control so we have to do something now to address the problem.
The continued bleating of the cargo cult is getting tiresome: We have predicted that planes would land if we built airfields and made “earphones” out of coconuts. They haven’t but that is just because they are in a holding pattern and stacking up air traffic.
Yes, airfields and control towers were correlated with aircraft landing and air dropping “goodies”. But creating them did not bring them back, and they were not stacked up awaiting clearance to land.
“Truth is what works.” – The models simply don’t. Not to say we should not expand our knowledge of why they don’t, but we should begin to accept the fact that their predictions are just plain wrong at the moment and have no predictive ability.
My house is a closed system, I have good insulation a sophisticated climate control system, that being said, if I walk from room to room or floor to floor there are temperature changes of 1-2 C, sometimes 4-5 from upstairs to the basement. This range is right now, not in a decade or a century but instantly in a closed controlled system. The fact that the “global” temperature is so stable is a miracle, especially when it is a tiny sphere in space with temps that are close to 0K, when mapped on a Kelvin scale the temperature record is flat, less than 1% per millenium.