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.
@SonicsGuy
If I say, “it’s been five days since it last rained,” I’m not cherry-picking.
Similarly, if I say, “it’s been a dozen years since temperatures stopped rising,” I’m not cherry-picking.
Darn. I should have done my doctoral work at UNSW in Climate Sciences. It would have been so much easier just to model some models to show that the modeled-models don’t predict the lack of something that they didn’t predict in the first place, all the time having a like minded group of supporters. But no, I had to conduct real original research at a Tier 1 school, and actually defend the work in front of 4 guys who had some thoughts that were contrary to my own, (actually they were highly complimentary of the final dissertation after they attacked me like a pack of wolves during a public defense). Geez, science just seems to be so much easier these days
SonicsGuy says “CO2 will always be a heat-trapping gas. That’s simple physics.” The Earth’s climate is a really complex system. It takes more than one simple physics principle to explain it. Even though it looks like SonicsGuy has disappeared, I just had to say it.
In fairness to Sonicsguy, whom I’ve disputed all thread, he has to sleep sometime.
He’s hardly run away from debate.
Agreed. I disagree with a few of his points but he’s made his case clearly and politely and tried to back it up with evidence. He’s not a troll as some have tried to suggest. Personally I’d welcome more exchanges of this kind. I was just a bit too knackered tonight to join in.
That pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics hasn’t been repealed yet, has it? I mean, how does heat energy get into the deep ocean without the atmosphere and the ocean surface temp rising first?
You’re not paying attention. It isn’t “heat energy” that gets into the deep oceans. It is middle of the spectrum solar EM radiant energy, which is NOT “heat energy”.
And the middle of the solar spectrum, about 500 nm wavelength has a 1/e absorption depth of 100 meters, which means 99% is absorbed in 500 meters, and 95% is absorbed in 300 meters, that’s about a thousand feet. Some of that radiant energy is subsequently wasted as “heat energy”, but a lot of it is turned into bio-mass, and the ocean is full of it. Has nothing to do with the second law. Solar radiation can go anywhere it wants to.
SonicsGuy
“How would you go about falsifying the models?”
The models cannot be “falsified,” and never will be. There will only modifications to the existing way they portray the physics (and changes in GHG radiative forcing are very unlikely to change; as they are probably the *best* know parts of the problem). …
Nuff said 🙂 – if it can’t be falsified, it isn’t science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/15/why-deniers-are-always-wrong-models-cant-be-falsified/
It turns out “sonicsguy” is the irascible David Appell who wrote me this taunting email, outing himself.
From: David Appell
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:11 PM
To: awatts@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: SonicsGuy
Anthony, it’s always fun messing with your head.
I especially like the point where you get so annoyed someone is daring to politely present real science, you have to track them down.
Have a supergreat day,
David
PS: A lot of your readers are really dumb…. (esp dbstealey).
PPS: I comment on your site _all the time_, usually via a proxy and rarely as hardcore as recently. You never notice
================================================================================
I replied at about 5:50PM with this.
No idea what you are on about, but whatever it is it’s all in your head. I’ve been off the grid this afternoon (I had to drive to Sacrameneto and back), my cell phone died and I’ve not followed any comments today, posts were set to auto publish. And I’ve just now had a chance to check email. I’ve not spent any time “tracking you down” as you assert.
But I will let people know they were replying to a sock-puppet who has a strong need for attention.
Have a supergreat day and stay classy, David Appell.
Anthony
[Deliberately using false names as proxies, eh? .mod]
Huh. I’d have thought David Appell would’ve put up a better fight than that.
Whatever…
The creep mentioned me by name! I could not be happier. That means I got to him — and his proxy nanny, “Edward Richardson”, who might even be the same sockpuppet.
I would say, “Stay classy, David Appell”. But there’s no way, is there? ☺
Friends:
Our host reports that “sonicsguy” is a fake who claims to have been “messing with {our host’s} head”.
Well, that seems to be a complete answer to the resident troll, John Finn, who wrote of “sonicsguy” at August 28, 2014 at 5:13 pm saying here
There is a recent practice of trolls operating in packs or as tag-teams to disrupt threads. It is not clear if this results solely from those such as John Finn deciding to “join in” or is encouraged by decisions of troll paymasters.
Richard
Poor thing is just working through his climate angst 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/15/a-climate-of-despair-climategate-had-more-effect-than-we-realize/
He wasn’t messing with anyone’s head except his own. This note of his shows just how pathetic his actions are. Sad.
@richardscourtenay:
There is another alternative. The “two” trolls could well be one & the same troll using different but valid email addresses, pretending to support “each other”.
Ooh, David Appell is a professional.
And he just got a bottom-spanking (most politely by most of us) by the commenters here, many of whom are amateurs.
I got him to agree that the models can’t replicate the real world – thus he will always have to concede that they have no predictive power and AGW can be ignored.
Climatology is in trouble, isn’t it?
That creep (Appell) infests our local newspapers with multiple sock puppets. I wonder if he is doing thousands of posts all over the country and one of only a few actual believers that keep up the fraud.
Nicola Maher, a UNSW PhD-candidate
I think that says it all. You don’t get your PhD by disagreeing with the establishment. But he has let the genie loose. If natural cycles can account for cooling, why not warming?
2030 – is too short a time. Why not 2060 when everybody here is dead and cannot verify your forecast? The only safe long range forecast is a very long range forecast.
So, cooling and warming are fighting each other but she thinks warming will come up ahead? An interesting fairy tale, not science, especially since it comes from modeling. They had thirty of those models, presumably because there is no way that just one model can fit the data. With thirty you get a variety of outcomes to choose from, some of which just may cast a future you like.
These people are dreaming if they think multiple ‘hiatuses’ are ahead. First, There is no reason whatsoever to attribute periodic nature to this hiatus/pause phenomenon we are experiencing now. This does not mean that it has not happened before without their knowing. An example is the eighties and nineties before the arrival of the super El Nino.
Global mean temperature was constant from 1979 to early 1997, an 18 year linear stretch. If the super El Nino had not arrived in 1998 this and the present pause/hiatus might have merged. Of course they have no idea what happened in the eighties and nineties because ground-based temperature curves show this period as a warming they like to call “late twentieth century warming.”
Check out the satellite view of this period in Figure 15 of my book and you will see just how outrageous their fakery is. Their concepts of what may cause this hiatus are also ridiculous. For one thing, it has nothing to do with volcanism. Volcanic cooling that is on many temperature charts is imaginary and has nothing to do with volcanism either.
These coolings are created by renaming La Nina valleys that are part of the ENSO oscillation. It is simply a misuse of a volcano’s name to appropriate a La Nina cooling in a convenient location as volcanic cooling created by that volcano. But an El Nino is just as likely as a La Nina to be sitting there. If by chance your volcano picks an El Nino instead of a La Nina to settle down with there will be nary a sign of that volcanic cooling they expect to see.
For some reason volcanologists are still scratching their heads about it if all they had to do was to read my book. Pinatubo was lucky to pull a La Nina this way but El Chichon was not so lucky. It pulled an El Nino instead and was left without any cooling to call its own. I showed representative alleged volcanic coolings in Figure 10 of my book “what Warming?” on a background of ENSO oscillations.
First, it is obvious that not one of them has any influence on the El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys that are part of ENSO. Of the whole lot, Pinatubo has the best La Nina valley cornered for itself. Krakatoa, the one whose explosion was heard across the ocean, has a miserably small valley dedicated to its volcanic cooling because its explosion timing coincided with the down-slope of a La Nina.
Katmai-Novarupta, alleged to be the most powerful eruption of the twentieth century, shows no volcanic cooling whatsoever because of its poor timing. Unadvisedly, it picked the rising flank of an El Nino for his eruption and just as I expected, an El Nino peak and not a volcanic cooling followed. And El Chichon is in the same situation, what with its eruption timed exactly at the center of a La Nina valley, with temperature nowhere to go but up.
There are various predictions in this paper that seem a waste of time and not worth taking seriously. Among them is the promise that hiatuses will be a thing of the past by century’s end. The number of attempts to end the hiatus(es) was recently raised up to 39 but I am not sure theirs is important enough to call it number 40.
[Note: Comment broken into paragraphs to make it more readable. Also, the number of excuses for global warming stopping is now up to 52. ~ mod.]
Adjustments on the way….
or
Adjustments to the rescue!!! Well, soon.
or
We don’t pay attention to this pause, it’s still warming though nothing shows it.
or
I know it has been cooling but it is still warming. Climatologists tell me so.
I like the term Bozos and that sure applies here. Thanks for the term.
Keep punch’n!
Has anybody done any research into how many Climate Scientists are also Freemasons?
What is a Freemason? I had someone explain it to me for an hour once but I still have no clue.
Hope this helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
http://willdawg.hubpages.com/hub/Freemasons-and-the-symbols-on-the-dollar-bill
Hello David Appell !!! How have you been ol’ chump? Still skulking around I see.
Indeed Dave Appell widely promotes the willful slander that climate model skepticism amounts to greenhouse effect denial:
“Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?
I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.
When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.”
davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html
David Appell is a hyper troll.
I didn’t know David Apple was still with us. He was a pleasant weatherman back in the day in Portland.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=36253783
Now that’s funny. I mean sad about David Apple, but funny about the troll-goon.
I don’t think he’s a troll. He shook the place up. He used science. He wasn’t all wrong. That’s good. Otherwise, we become groupthink like those ‘other’ people.
Appell is a stalker. If he cannot convince you he starts stalking you.
Mary Brown,
Didn’t you read Anthony’s post above? Appell emailed Anthony:
Anthony, it’s always fun messing with your head.
Appell is a despicable troll. That is how he “shook the place up”. You can argue that he used science, but I disagree. His purpose was exactly what he admitted: “messing with your head”. He constantly changed the subject, cherry-picked random facts, and kept moving the goal posts. That is not debating in good faith.
Apparently he has nothing better to do than waste his time and everyone else’s being a site pest. He is not honest, instead, he uses a sockpuppet identity [more than one, I would bet] to get away with his deception.
Plenty of other, sincere warmists argue the same points as Appell, so there is no danger of “groupthink” here. That is the problem at alarmist blogs, which quickly censor comments that are not in agreement with their groupthink. But Anthony does not censor, rather, he invites all points of view. One of his rules, though, is no sockpuppetry. Now you can see why.
Any comments posted in good faith are always welcome here. Skeptics are kept on their toes by having to confront, and deal with different points of view. That’s a good thing. But what Appell did was not good. It was devious, dishonest, and nothing but an unwanted prank.
milodonharlani,
Unfortunately, of course, that’s a different David Appell. The one posting here as Sonicsguy is clearly a sociopath. Anyone familiar with Appell knows him to be a truly despicable human being.
I did like the way commenter “mouruanh” had him on the ropes earlier in the thread, though.
I have my doubts about “Edward Richardson”, too. That is too whitebread a name. Easy to hide behind. I think he’s either another troll, or he is another sockpuppet of Appell.
What say you, “Edward”? You aren’t really “Edward Richardson”, are you?
“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
So, if it snows, it is global warming, and if it doesn´t, it is global warming. Not science but dogma.
Did SonicGuy really say CO2 traps heat?
You won’t find a bigger fan of this website than myself and I appreciate SonicsGuy’s comments. I wish we had more believers commenting here – it makes for a much better discussion.
I quite agree.
We don’t have to accept their views but we ought to be polite and engage.
After all, no-one can be entirely wrong all the time.
And no-one can be entirely right all the time.
Let’s be welcoming or this site will suffer from a decline into introspection (like the Guardian is doing).
Maybe. However, when someone states CO2 traps heat you know they are talking crap.
Got a reference for this, I wonder? Sounds like a creationist scoffing at irreducible complexity, in other words sounds like a losing argument to just call widely accepted theory crap, as if that’s how science works, by visceral expression of disgust.
CO@ur momisugly cannot trap heat. Simples. (Mods i am not sure how this will appear in thread).
William Holder
You say
You “appreciate SonicsGuy’s comments”?!! Did you read them?
People who want to only hear their own views talk to mirrors.
Therefore, people who provide a different view are useful and interesting.
But trolls have no interest in providing a different view, and SonicsGuy is an extreme troll. Indeed, we now know SonicsGuy was a pretend person only constructed to be a troll.
A troll attempts to PREVENT rational discussion, to PREVENT mutual exchange of ideas and opinions, and to PREVENT anybody learning anything. Trolls consider disruption success and SonicsGuy was so extreme an example that he was a caricature of a troll. He only provided disinformation and he presented it as a method to astonish, to offend and to enrage.
Richard
Look, I have to second Richard here.
I love a good clean argument with somebody who actually has a point they’re arguing. It’s interesting, I learn something, and everybody has a good time, win lose or draw. I’ll freely admit I don’t mind going off topic to indulge in debate.
But when a troll comes in with superficial stupid crap like Appell did, it’s not a pause it’s a slowdown, roy spencer rebaselined his chart, models cannot be falsified, there’s no substance. He’s just blowing smoke all over the place. When every fourth comment is his on a thread of over a hundred comments, that’s a lot of smoke. I don’t see anything productive, educational, or fun about that.
Mark Bofill
Yes, and it was the second thread where SonicsGuy behaved like that.
I can understand people being fooled once by that, but twice!
Richard
I second Richard and Mark. There is a big difference between a site pest who only wants to cause trouble, and people who still believe in CAGW. The former are no good, but the latter keep us on our toes.
BS – He, SG, makes the kind of points regularly found in discussions at other climate sites or following news articles on climate change. I don’t believe he’s right but he’s not a troll or if he is I must be a troll every time I spew my denier babble on other blogs. We can’t be a site where someone is called a troll for putting up a strong argument in favor of his beliefs. SG backed himself up with a well known study and he fought tooth and nail to overcome the regulars here – I respect that and it made for a learning experience.
Any believer who might have stopped by here saw himself in those comments and may have been swayed by our arguments – until we called him a troll which seems dismissive and shallow. This allows the warmist to dismiss us and our arguments and go back to his little warmist cabal sure that we are idiots.
William
Your claim that SonicsGuy was not a troll is daft.
Appell admitted he invented this fictitious character of SonicsGuy for the sole and specific purpose of “messing with the head” of our host.
We need opposing viewpoints so all views can be debated.
We do NOT need – and should excoriate – trolls whose intention is to destroy rational debate. Such trolls include anonymous posters who write to pretend that blatant trolling is merely a different viewpoint.
Richard
Someone needs to tell SonicsGuy the Pacific Northwest snowpack is not decreasing. The trend has been UP over the past 31 years:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/marka/swe.pnw.may.1984-2014.png
…say the climate models that have already been falsified by the current hiatus.
I guess for sonicsguy, david appalling, edward richardson, whoever that excrement really is, mission accomplished, since he’s paid by the word from the taxpayer-trough.
Anth*ny prb’ly should’ve shown his email address, but he’s too fair-minded.
[Note: “Edward Richardson” has been using a fake email address. Draw your own conclusions. ~mod.]
I am but a retired engineer, but the whole concept of this claim puzzles me:
“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.”
If I fully accept the main premise of the IPCC, that increasing atmospheric C02 caused by man-made C02 is the only important “new” climate driver.
And I assume that this effect is superimposed on top of the natural PDO/AMO cycle.
Then we should continue to see a stairstep or sawtooth pattern with long term upward trend of yet undetermined slope. Why would this pattern stop?
if I also assume that temperature sensitivity decreases as the C02 concentration increases, then the long term pattern should flatten over time, not become so steep as to obfuscate any short term PDO/AMO downtrend.
So where am I going wrong, or should Nicola Maher be denied her PhD on the basis of this paper?
You do know that the IPCC juggernaut of CO2 being the driver started before anyone even knew what the PDO was. The PDO was named in 1996. In the 80s and early 90s as CO2 being the driving force moved from science to gospel how exactly do you think they accounted for this yet unknown and unquantified phenomenon? Time travel?
Didn’t this guy read the WUWT article, “Global Warming ‘Pause’ Could Last for 30 Years“. I’m glad the science is settled.
“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.”
It is a fact that this statement is wrong due to the logarithmic behavior of CO2 gas. They said this would happen for the last decade or so, but were wrong. The more CO2 gas you add to the atmosphere the less temperature increase results for temporary retention.
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608049992216676708&pid=15.1&P=0
The fact is now it is cool enough to overcome warming and the same cycle occurring in future with similar or slightly higher rate of CO2 will have less affect than it does now. How can people in climate science miss the basics so easily? It’s highly unlikely the increasing rate of CO2 will be high enough during this time to overcome the cooling phase.
That’s without even bringing into it the ocean cycles, previous decline in global cloud and the missing heat that is nowhere to be found.
So it turns out that “Edward Richardson” is erstwhile commenter “H Grouse”. And “chuck”.
No wonder he argues incessantly.
Are you serious ? That’s the same turd I pwned on carbon dating of tree stumps and Austrian glaciers with 30 seconds of Googling a week ago ?
I knew zero about about tree stumps and Austrian glaciation before the 30 seconds of Googling.
Not earning his filthy lucre is he ?
dbstealey
You report
and
Well, that explains why I reached the stage of refusing to engage with him. As I said e.g. in this thread at August 28, 2014 at 12:33 pm here
Of course SonicsGuy and Edward Richardson operated in a despicable concert when they were the same person pretending to be two different people as a method to mislead others!
Richard
Folks,
Just so you get the crystal clear picture:
David Appell is a prolific sock puppet here in the Portland media appearing in multiple forms to soil the commons.
He’s the ultimate serial troll of the worst kind who’s resorted to vile behavior in personal emails lately.
He appears to be getting rather volatile as he panics to get his fix for whatever climate trip he is after.
He may have invested his soul in AGW and is now feeling like a reject from the Adams Family casting call.
He is also the ultimate example of how the internet age can enable the small and disturbed minded to participate, incognito, in discussions with regular folks who have no idea how messed up the person and his motivations are.
He should find something else to do. But will not.
Leopard spots.
Worse yet, the lame, laughable, lying, lifeless loser loon appropriated the name of a deceased weatherman in the Portland market.
He is going national. On a national forum, Appell claimed that CO2 was NOT a trace gas. I have him several opportunities to walk it back, but he never did. I have the link if anyone wants a laugh.