Earlier we added this to the list, now here is the description of the excuse. Basically what they are saying is that natural climate variability has overtaken the posited powerful effects of CO2 on climate.
From the EU’s JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Last decade’s slow-down in global warming enhanced by an unusual climate anomaly:
A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend. The exact causes of the latter, unique in the entire observational record going back to 1850, are still to be identified, according to a JRC article which analysed the phenomena.
The earth hasn’t warmed at the same pace during the 20th century. The noticeable temperature increases during some periods interspersed with fairly stable or decreasing levels during others have been explained as a combination of secular global warming (likely manmade) and natural climate variability. We are currently, in the early 21st century, experiencing a hiatus period, during which surface temperatures have not risen at the same rate as higher atmospheric radiative forcing.
JRC scientists analysed surface temperature data records – which began in 1850 – to separate natural variations from secular (i.e., long-term) trends. They identified three hiatus periods (1878-1907, 1945-1969 and 2001 to date), during which global warming slowed down. These hiatus periods coincide with natural cooling phases – the multidecadal variability (MDV), most likely caused by natural oceanic oscillations. The scientists therefore conclude that the MDV is the main cause of these hiatus periods during which global warming decelerated.
However, they found that the current hiatus period is, for the first time, particularly strongly influenced by changes in the secular trend, which shows a strong acceleration from 1992-2001 and a deceleration from 2002 to 2013. Such rapid and strong fluctuations in the secular warming rate are unprecedented.
This unique fluctuation in the recent secular warming rate could have several causes, such as recent changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the accelerated melting of Arctic ice, changes in the deep ocean heat storage or the increasing content of aerosols in the stratosphere. The authors recommend further scientific investigation of the causes and consequences of this change, in order to address whether the global climate sensitivity has recently changed. Such research is crucial to understanding current climate conditions and creating plausible scenarios of future climate evolution.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The collapse of global warming Climate Science s happening before our very eyes.
As far a number of excuses goes: Many of the above excuses are all closely related. Anthony or someone smarter than me on Climate should group them into excesses by major “claimed” mechanism to see how many there really are and then group all the subtle minor variations within an a major excuse.
We’ve all learned that Global Warming can do Anything.
I think what they’ve just said here is that Global Warming has caused a reduction in Global Warming.
I read it like that, too.
I think they call that a “self-licking ice cream cone.” 😉
secular
[ ˈsekyələr ]
adjective
denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: Contrasted with sacred.
“secular buildings”
synonyms: nonreligious · areligious · lay · temporal · worldly · earthly ·
More
noun
a secular priest.
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press
The correct term in their context would be “centennial” or “centenary.”
“Such rapid and strong fluctuations in the secular warming rate are unprecedented.”
Unprecedented to them perhaps.
“‘Tis new to thee.” [Them]
They stated.”A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend..”
————————————————————————————–
Strange redundancy. I read this as a natural cooling trend, and a reduction in the non-religious warming trend. Which begs the question, what is the religious warming trend?
Oh, yes, we know it as CAGW, which has been taking quite a beating lately, but has 52 excuses as to why it is really still warming; so they are correct, the non-secular warming trend is still in tact.
I think they subconsciously reveal the religious character of their beliefs.
It’s funny that they refer to the warming as a secular trend when it seems to be more a matter of religious faith. 😉
Aha! You had the same thought.
Gosh… lets hope these scientists are not in the mood of rebeling yet…against the man-made climate religion and end-up to be referenced as heretics…by likes of Dana and Cook….
cheers
> The authors recommend further scientific investigation
> of the causes and consequences of this change, in
> order to address whether the global climate sensitivity
> has recently changed.
Which translates into English as please give us more money for research grants.
Well, that’s that then. the science is settled.
/sarc
I agree, MBP, any claims henceforth that “the science is settled” in relation to climate change are just hollow bunk. How can these people show their faces in public??
Yes I aggree with teh above. How was this secular signal de-composed from the single temp record.
Also, these graphs also always show 0. How is that calculated? Are these calculations the same ( i.e. standard ) for all these graphs?
How lucky do you have to be to find these ‘natural causes ‘ perfectly balance the temperature increases that ‘had to occur ‘ due to an increases in atmospheric CO2 according to climate ‘scientists’ Tails you lose , heads I win seems to be a standard approach in climate science’
This type of argument, rarely considers the differing CO2 induced forcings during the various periods of hiatus.
For example, in relation to a theory that suggests that CO2 must drive temperature increases, it is more significant that there is 14 year plus hiatus after 2000 when CO2 levels are upwards of 390ppm compared to the 20 year plus hiatus around the 1880s/1900 when CO2 levels were only about 290 ppm. The forcing at the end of the 20th century is considerable more than the forcing at the beginning of the 20th century, so natural variation has to be stronger at the end of the century if it precisely cancels out the warming effect of all that CO2 in the atmosphere.
The same point arises (but to a lesser extent) with respect to the late 1940s hiatus.
Jokes aside, when it comes to 14+ years of a hiatus in the particular condition as experienced, one thing, which is ignored by many, but not by Phil Jones, IS THAT NUMBERS DON’T LIE, even when some times the approach somehow arbitrary.
There was a good reason why Phil told to some of his pals that unless the pause goes beyond 14 years there was nothing to worry.
With the hiatus at 14+ years it means that the finger print of what we call a climate sensitive, for whatever reason we choosed to rely on it, shows that we are in an influence or a driving of a long term natural variation.
A 14+ years, according to the numbers is well beyond a possibility to be caused by short term natural variation.
Longer the pause lasts more clear it becomes that the climate is changing as it suppose to, naturally according to its long term change.
According to the numbers in relation to climate sensitivity a 14 years of a pause could be due to a short term natural variation, in the particular condition as it is, only if we were previously in a longer than a 300 years of a certain warming trend. And that at a 14 years of hiatus. At 20 years pause (not considering the possibility of the cooling) it requiries a 400 and longer warming trend to be explained under the short term natural variations. And that is in the case of been kind with the numbers.
So if by any chance this the case, then there never will be enough short term natural variations to explain it.
Maybe even a 520 reasons could not be enough. Beyond 14+ years the anomaly shown by the climate sensitivity becomes very significant. It could get to a point that at a 450 ppm CO2 and still in a pause, there will be no other way but to claim an anthropogenic climate change causing an unprecedented cooling.
I know this is a kinda of a very abstract form to express an idea or a thought but to me that is what the numbers show.
I could very possibly be wrong…
cheers
All of the “best” “climatologists” used say the secular trend coming out of the little ice age ended in the 1970s. Warming since the 70s supposedly did not have a natural component. An other nail on the coffin of the theory that “water vapor feedback enhances CO2’s thermodynamic effect”. Positing a secular trend since the 70s reduces even more any warming due to CO2 + H2O.
It gets better & better! Warming causes cooling, which in turn causes warming, which causes cooling. reminds me of the Wet Office predictions: “Some regions will experience warmer temperatures, others will experience cooler temperatures. Some areas will experience more rainfall, others will experience less rainfall. some areas will experience dryer weather, others will experience wetter weather.” Just predict everything & anything & you’ll NEVER be wrong!
Others have already said it, but science is truly dying on its feet here!
Sunny periods with scattered showers.
Also, “cloudy otherwise clear.”
The “scientists” that are politically motivated have a big foothold in politics and academia.
They are going to be difficult to get rid of. If ever.
These folks are never wrong[just ask them].
They must have gotten 100% on every test they have ever written.
They always have a JERRE. Justification; Explanation; Rationalization; Reason; or Excuse.
IMO.
How about that magic trick where you hide ten envelopes each containing a number from 1 to 10. Then you ask your mark to choose a number between 1 and 10. After a bunch of woo-woo theatrics and claims of special powers you go to where the corresponding envelope is and presto!
More epicycles
Yes… right you are.
My guess is that the “downturn of the secular warming trend” is caused by the same thing that sent all the previous interglacials back into glaciation. We’re due.
Shakespeare says it is dreams that “must give us pause”.
Ham 3:1:68
A physics based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037.
The drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are given at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com.
Find out why thermalization makes CO2 change NOT a driver in an updated paper at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com .
Reader DMA hits the highlight –> “The authors recommend further scientific investigation of the causes and consequences of this change, in order to address whether the global climate sensitivity has recently changed. Such research is crucial to understanding current climate conditions and creating plausible scenarios of future climate evolution.”
They have opened the door — IPCC-mandated global climate sensitivity figures can now be safely challenged by Team scientists without censure.
Now maybe we’ll see some real science on the issue.
@Pamela Gray, I love the way you think! Of frozen mammoth’s, I have a interesting anecdotal tale from my friend and next door neighbor Robbie DeAmbroso, this goes back to around 1968, we were playing in the back yard and he tells me a story he got from his great uncle, who , as the story goes was a sailor on one or more of Admiral Byrd’s polar expeditions, where he says they were nearly starving when the crew found a frozen mammoth, the multi ton beastie of hot furry meat was frozen so fast that flowers in its stomach had not been even digested a little, and the bacteria in the gut of said creature that gets active at the moment of death, had not even kicked in! What became clear to the scientists of the day was that creature was frozen solid in its tracks instantly. OK folks what kind of temperature drop is that????? If it can happen once, it can happen again. Ice ages are nasty affairs methinks!
‘Fanciful excuse ‘ hypothesis.
“JRC scientists analysed bogus adjusted out of all touch with reality surface temperature data food product records”
Fixed if for them…
I note in passing that the hottest ever records of the 1930s have been disappeared…. Also that the “New Little Ice Age” panic of the ’70s has been turned into a “hiatus”… Just gotta iron that past into a nice flat cold to warm sequence and then it’s easy to play the climate data manipulation game…
So in other words they have no clue and are desperate to keep the IPCC’s global warming lies afloat. And continue to keep the medieval warming period data off the long period temperature maps that prove the climate changes we have seen are cyclical and not man made.
So…
Does this mean that the science isn’t settled?
I’m so confused!!!
So, is any one of those 52 explanations, “Our theory was wrong”? If not, then they still haven’t come to grips with reality.