Now that “the pause” has come of age, and has exceeded 18 years, it is time to revisit a post a made back in November 2011.
Bill Illis reminded me in comments of this spectacular failure of peer reviewed climate science:
Let’s remember several years ago when all the heavy-weights of climate science produced a paper that said the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.
Carl Mears was the second author on that paper along Ben Santer (lead) [and Tom Wigley, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl, Gerald Meehl, Peter Stott, Peter Thorne, Frank Wentz].
Well, that time has now been exceeded and they all have egg on their face.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf
Alhough, if you read Carl Mears article carefully, he is starting the discussion that maybe the theories need to be revised. His use of the d’word may be needed just to keep him in the club and not being shown the door by his other compatriots who accept no questioning at all.
Here’s the current lower troposphere temperature from RSS:
Here’s the reminder press release boasting of their discovery. Emphasis mine.
Separating signal and noise in climate warming
LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.
Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth’s surface estimated from thermometer records.
Recently, a number of global warming critics have focused attention on the behavior of Earth’s temperature since 1998. They have argued that there has been little or no warming over the last 10 to 12 years, and that computer models of the climate system are not capable of simulating such short “hiatus periods” when models are run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases.
“Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,” said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).
Many scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature changes. These detection and attribution studies look at long, multi-decade observational temperature records. Shorter periods generally have small signal to noise ratios, making it difficult to identify an anthropogenic signal with high statistical confidence, Santer said.
“In fingerprinting, we analyze longer, multi-decadal temperature records, and we beat down the large year-to-year temperature variability caused by purely natural phenomena (like El Niños and La Niñas). This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,” Santer said.
The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
“One individual short-term trend doesn’t tell you much about long-term climate change,” Santer said. “A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability.”
The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues Charles Doutriaux, Peter Caldwell, Peter Gleckler, Detelina Ivanova, and Karl Taylor, and includes collaborators from Remote Sensing Systems, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Colorado, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Meteorology Office Hadley Centre, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
###
Source: http://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
The lower troposphere temperature has been flat now for 18 years on one dataset, RSS. No human effects can be seen. What say you Dr. Santer?
- Ignore your own folly?
- Say your paper was mistaken and publish a new goalpost mover paper saying that we really need 30 years?
- Or, will you simply admit that the posited warming isn’t happening?
I’m guessing you’ll go with #2.
Global warming was problematic for a few reasons; warming was flattening out and the “bad” effects if warming did occur, were decades to centuries into the future. Marketing dreams of people falling in line due to the horror of being roasted alive did not materialize due to continual cold weather. People in frigid climates were pissed that the projected warming they would welcome was not happening. Time scale was an issue as well; absolutely certain 100 year climate predictions are not believable when daily weather predictions are approximations and will always be approximations until time machines are invented. People just ain’t as stupid as climate scientist and political marketing efforts.
So it went to “Climate Change”. Even the most uneducated and ignorant know instinctively that climate does change and has always changed. This name has to be the lamest marketing name ever invented, well at least since we began collecting satellite temperature data.
I think next its, (drum roll please) “Climate Disruption”. “Humanity is disrupting the climate and we are all going to die” is at least a little better than “Humanity is changing the climate and we are all going to die”. Humanity changing climate is sense-less since the climate is always changing. Climate Disruption implies in this continually changing climate, humanity is disrupting it. Equally as stupid, since we have no baseline or scientific definition as to what “natural” climate change is.
No, this will not end the nonsense, just the marketing strategies.
Heh, time for sort of a new null, that all weather and climate have now been changed because of man, but for the better. At any given time, ask this: ‘Colder or now?’. Only fools would opt for colder, but look into which dark alley the warming alarmists have wandered.
===========
Thank our luckystars for the “pause”. Otherwise this might happen:
Reprted today “Climate change could affect the ratio of human males to human females that are born in some countries, a new study from Japan suggests. The researchers found that male fetuses may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change
The males need to stop wearing nylon undies.
The researchers found that male fetuses may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Aye, It make their X/Y ‘hockey sticks’ even bigger!
Has anyone bothered to catalog all the AGW ‘predictions’ that have not come to pass? After 20 years it would be a long and embarrassing list that needs to be brought to light.
Option 4) The oceans ate it.
We never make mistakes, we just model them. (TM CAGW ‘Climate’ “Science”)
By a perfect coincidence, “We never make mistakes” is the title of book of two Novels,
by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, published in 1971, which deals with the Soviet mindset,
particularly as it applies to the the collision of error and dogma in even the smallest events.
CAGW ‘Climate’ “Science” is crying out for an adaption of Solzhenitsyn’s stories,
replete with Climate Czars, Commissars and other sad jokes.
The warmist brigade show the classic signs of the self deluded egotist. They are certain of their own truth, without the perspective provided by comparison.
They remind me of an old joke about a Texan cattle ranch owner and an Australian cattle station owner, talking in a bar.
The Texan stands up and proudly states, “I can saddle my horse in the morning, ride all day, and still not reach the other side of my ranch”.
The Aussie cattleman puts a sympathetic hand on the Texan’s shoulder and says, “I had a horse like that once”.
Steven said Santer needed bigger models, more noise, not that the models or Santer were wrong.
Flip to scene of Santer noisily crying in his beer with a consoling hand on his shoulder.
Of course they will go with #2 then 30 years hence, again with #2. As matter of fact why don’t we just call their whole enterprise a steaming pile of #2.
Seventeen climate researchers likely with Ph. D.’s from Livermore National Laboratory, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, UK’s Hadley Climate Center, University of Colorado and Remote Sensing Systems with financial support from World Climate Research, US Department of Energy, and Hadley Climate Center say…”temperature records of at least 17 years length are required for identifying (of) human effects of global mean temperature” (Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 2011).
Today, Remote Sensing Systems and Univ. of Alabama report that the mean satellite/balloon land-ocean temperature remains unchanged for 18 years one month, since September 1996, or one year beyond Santer’s 17 year requirement. The University of Illinois reports that the extent of Antarctic sea ice reached a new record high in September 2014 of 16,806,000 square kilometers. Rural US stations reveal temperatures down-trending since the 1930s-1940s (NOAA) unlike climbing urban temperatures but those are easily explained by ever-growing expanses of asphalt and concrete in cities. From these and Santer’s statement global warming expired and truth routed climate change.
By these authorities, all publics shall be informed that global warming, climate change (and like propaganda) are revealed as grandiose lies. The world’s greatest hoax now gets a “finger in its eye”.
the biggest problem with claiming a “no warming trend” using the RSS data set is that the other satellite data set from UHA, (Spencer & Christy) shows a warming trend for the same period – 1997 on.
There needs to be an explanation as to why these two LTT data sets differ
Essentially, the UAH data showed less warming in the 20th century and this led to the RSS average being higher at the end of that time period. They then started to converge. Since RSS started at a higher point in the late 90s it now has a flat trend while UAH has an upward trend. Overall, for the complete record, they have now converged. In other words they both show about the same amount of warming for the entire 35 years.
Boy, you guys are naive. These guys are more dedicated and deceitful than you think.
I am reading a book, “The West Without Water” by two young women climatologists (I think they work on sediments and shells, mainly). The book documents the volatile climate of California and adjacent states during the Holocene. Megafloods, megadroughts, etc. Wide swings in temperature. Huge floods occurred there in the 1860’s, flooding the central valley. Yet, they are very careful to show obeisance to man made climate change. The disconnect between what they describe (highly variable climate) and the Mann hockey stick stuff, and the blaming of extreme weather on humans, for example, is huge, but they are on board with man-made global warming, or else, I suppose. It is amazing they call this stuff science. These people are inmates.
They even talk about the Medieval Warm Period, which had great impacts in California. A megadrought that knocked off the “Ancestral Pueblo Cultures.” (This book is so P.C. you gag sometimes. They dismiss the topic of widespread warfare and cannibalism during this period in one or two sentences.) But, they cannot use the term MWP throughout their book. They quickly call it the “Medieval Climate Anomaly.” This is evil, pure and simple. But, this is how totalitarian regimes control their people. They control their language and their thoughts. Truly Orwellian.
So, that is your enemy. A a truly Orwellian organization. Pure evil. They will not go away quietly. And, if they give up on global warming, they will just come back with something else, perhaps worse.
And, while you guys are railing against this or that climatologist, you are forgetting that they are just the disposable tools of very powerful interests whose identity we are only dimly aware. They will certainly not go away, and will never give up.
BTW, don’t buy this book. There is not much in it.
Well, I guess we are less naïve now.
I just got to Chapter 12. The first 11 chapters describe the incredible climate events in CA history, all without human cause. Then, they outline their solution to the problem. I don’t understand by this time what the problem is, exactly. But, the solution involves removing humans, dams, irrigation, food production, and bringing back more fish. So, if you want to understand this book, start with Chapter 12. These people hate humans. They decry dam building, since it bring in more humans than the natural carrying capacity of the environment. I guess want humans to live like animals.
This book was a waste of money.
BTW, just to illustrate the dishonesty of these people. They talk about the ice ages and how CO2 rose and [fell] with the temperature. They imply that CO2 was a feedback to cause these wide temperature swings, never once mentioning that variable CO2 lags temperature, that is, it is an effect, not a cause, of changing temperature. So, if you talked to an educated liberal who read and believed this book, they would be still ignorant.
These people are evil. They couldn’t even write a coherent book.
Pardon my numerous grammatical errors. I was up early this morning working. That serves me right for posting when I am tired, but I was too “animated” by Chapter 12 to control myself.
Who would deliberately, beezlebubbly, destroy optima?
==================
Let’s face it, Santer thought he was being too clever by half in this paper by extending the warming hiatus timeline out to 17 years before there would be a problem while it was only 12 or 13 years at the time. He and his co-authors fully expected the warming to resume and there was no risk in pushing the time-line out to 17 years.
But it has fully back-fired now.
Does this mean the theory is incorrect.
Absolutely yes.
Santer should be forced to apoligize to the 7 billion people on this planet (and Kevin Trenberth as well if you know the history). Somebody needs to send him an email right now demanding that this ocurr since an honorable person would do so.
He’s mugged himself, the mug.
==========
I wish I shared the optimism of many here. I tend instead to agree with those who feel that there is no end in sight either for the alarmism or for the policies it leads to.
My pessimism stems largely from something I invite all of you to do. Go to https://www.google.com/alerts and create a daily alert for news related to climate change. Watch what comes through every day. Rarely is there anything from WUWT, the most viewed site on the topic. Rarely is there anything about the pause or studies that counter the alarmism. It is an almost uninterrupted stream of “what we need to do to save us from the horrors of climate change” or the equivalent.
It would be interesting to see a [poll] of the general population to see how many even know that there has been a 17 year pause in the warming. i’m guessing darn few would even know this, whether they believe in CAGW or not.
Heh, on grid or off grid, so to speak. Best to live aware of both.
==============
Just fascinating. I didn’t even use to “believe in global warming.” It came along with my fundamentalist Christianity. But now that I’ve left that, I find it much much easier to look at science with an open mind. I am especially interested in global warming issues and leaving a better legacy for future generations. Thank you for sharing.
http://www.tealtomato.com
So, you’re saying you’re easily swayed by groupthink on both sides of the spectrum? That is interesting.
Well, if you do indeed have an “open mind” (read: condescending and passive agressive manner), you will be well served by contributing here. Perhaps next time add something about the unpredicted and unprecidented flattening of world temperatures in direct contradition of the dozens of models the IPCC is built on.
And thank you for sharing!
Well, where to start. Anyone that thinks climate is not important to earth is living in fairy land. Plunge into an ice age, or even a little ice age, and let’s see what effect that has on humans.
It’s becoming increasingly clear earth’s climate is more complex than simplistic “forcings.” What’s needed now is leadership, and leadership means solutions to threats.
Warming is a threat, but so is cooling:
The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979.
Given the 110% warming attributed to humans according to Hansen, and .9 degrees “C” warming above, the earth ought to be 1 degree “C” colder than today (even after the human adjusted continued cooling of the past, and warming of the present, this amounts to temperatures that ought to be the lowest in the instrumental record. Who knows, perhaps it ought to be. And if the pause lasts another ten, or twenty years, we will be .2 – .4 degrees “C” below that.)
Over the next twenty years, the CO2 issue will play out with empirical evidence. Nothing can stop it. The question will remain, however, in different forms. Yet, there remain important advocacy items.
As an example, Hansen is now a believer in nuclear power. As is a former head of greenpeace. I say, given the uncertainties, why not entertain these concerns? Let’s push forward with nuclear, now with first generation nuclear, and invest in 2nd generation nuclear. I’m tired of the Green monopoly of my energy usage. I think Anthony mentioned his energy is nearly $1.00 per KwH at peak hours. Insane since my CA energy provider rates wholesale energy at 4c/KwH.
While we are at it, let’s push forward with Fracking. In the US on Government lands, as well as in Europe. I don’t care so much what China does. Whatever leads to cheap energy that gets past the greens.
Solar/wind/wood are failures (amazing that 40% of Germany’s renewables come from wood). How about an energy source that can be placed anywhere, and that takes the 4c wholesale price, or 6c Nuclear price, and delivers it guilt free in an all you can eat fashion? Develop a 2nd generation Nuclear that is terror free so we can lift up the 3rd World.
That is what Skeptics ought to be pushing for. To tear down the Green guilt in electric generation forever. No more tit for tat. Use their arguments against them.
Meanwhile, geo-engineering should be understood, in case the warming does come to pass (let’s face it, no one understands our complex climate system), and the world does need to reduce CO2. Volcanoes do naturally reduce temperatures, and we ought to understand a safe way to mimic it to give time in a pinch. And naturally, we ought to continue to understand the world we live in, which means continued expenditures in scientific understanding of climate, albeit with a wider light (as Judith Curry suggests).
In any event, that’s what I would do if I were King of the World. I can’t think of anything wrong with any of this. And, it’s vastly cheaper than the cronyism we are doing now.
The Chniese plan to build ~300 reactors to meet their energy demands. These reactors are a new design. The uranium is encased in graphite spheres and are cooled with helium. The reactor cannot meltdown. I wish the west, US, UK and Aus would take up this technology and runn with it.
Thanks, Ed. People are catching on to those inevitable curves of attribution. How this whole mess got so backwards continues to amaze me.
============
What a paper with only 17 authors! And all17 wrong.
I need answers for the following questions. Can some of you commenters take time to help me out, please?
Question #1: How much has temperature gone up over the last 150 years?
Question #2: What is the entire amount of CO2 already in our atmosphere (in tons)?
Question #3: How much CO2 do humans emit per year (in tons)?
Question #4: How much CO2 does earth emit naturally per year (in tons)?
Question #5: What is the total % of CO2 added to the existing CO2 in our atmosphere per year?
Question 6: What is the total % of man made CO2 added to the existing CO2 in our atmosphere?
Question 7: Over the last 150 years what % of the temperature rise is from natural co2 emissions vs human emissions?
Q8 why has there been no warming for 18 years.
John,
If you are like me – the average non scientist reader that doesn’t believe in CAGW – the brainy peeps here usually don’t answer these questions. They want us to look it up ourselves and learn, so that we aren’t sheep.
Personally, I can’t remember diddley squat on stats, and I am too busy with my own business to fight with stats, so I usually dump it back on the alarmists: “What evidence do you have to support your human induced warming theory”? There isn’t any. It’s all based on climate model forecasting. None the models have been accurate. Learned this from DB Stealey on this site. They are the ones making a scientific claim, not you. I tell them “I am all ears if you can show me the science that proves your point”. They usually say something like “I use the science of Renowned Climate Scientist; So and So”. I say: “That’s great, then show me so and so’s science”. They can’t, because so and so’s science is based on failed climate modeling also. Then hit them with the 18 years no warming/18 years increasing human C02 emissions and ask them to explain that to you. That’s usually when they start cussing at me.
Ron Richey
Hi John,
Q1:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Q3, 4:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
Q7:
Ah. That is the central question, isn’t it? Any physical process can be measured. But despite $Billions spent on ‘climate studies’ every year, they do not spend any money to find an answer to your Question #7.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to find the answer…
These climate scientists have completely misjudged the effects of anthropogenic CO2.
Anthropogenic CO2 has caused a time-warp effect between the earth’s surface and the very top of the earth’s atmosphere. This effect makes it seem that only three years have passed in this endoatmospheric CO2-warp bubble when in reality 17 years have passed. So, in some time frame there are still 14 years on a CO2-based clock.
We can now expect that in a little over 100 years warming may or may not resume. Depending on if anthropogenic CO2 decreases. Or increases.
(If you understand and accept this explanation…. you may be a pro-agwhacko climate scientist in need of many years of rest and soft foods.)
Posit the warp in the dimension of information, and there you have it.
===========
The ref was near ten as the body politic lay flat on the ice, concussed by high sticking.
===========
The story of global warming goes something like this.
Once upon a time there were these liberal academics who wanted to see a new world order. You see, they had made their money but needed to find a way to make your lives miserable while at the same time enjoying theirs.
So, they formed a committee to study just one side of the climate issue. By putting blinders on, they hoped to pull the wool over your eyes.
The greenies hopped on board as soon as they saw a fund-raising advantage. A few movie stars were trotted out since they don’t know anything about science anyway. Politicians were the easiest of all, cause most of them will go along with anything that raises taxes. The best of times all of a sudden became the worst of times.
Things went along swimmingly for them until about 18 years ago when, all of a sudden, the weather threw a monkey wrench into their plans. It just stopped warming. This required some quick thinking. So they banded together and seized upon the idea of a scientific consensus, and thought you might just fall for it.
Anybody that questioned them was a low-life, incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They’d say that they probably got their Doctor’s degree from some mail-order place. They weren’t to be trusted.
Then they decided to go whole-hog and make all sorts of things caused by global warming. That way the skeptics wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Everything, and I mean everything, was now proof of global warming. Those dry, itchy feet, no problem. Marital problems? Same again. Cold, warm, dry or wet – you bet.
If it wasn’t happening now, they declared that everything that goes around comes around. It was just hiding-out someplace. It’s just a matter of time before it bites you.
Perfect.
Nope, merely an extraordinary popular delusion and a madness of the herd. There were some(those) breathing, and blowing their horns, together(over there, see them?).
==================
Well, RMc, I read your whole comment, and think we are saying the same thing, but I like your version for the lovely illustrative detail.
===============
Do you really think the man beat nature. Do you really think the man has influence on climate. Then you are very arogant to think that people can do this. The only thing people can do is destroy. Man is the dumbest animal on earth.
I have to wonder if he will go with #2 over #1. After all the alarmism in his original study relied heavily upon by the IPCC was built on the 17 year warming period from 1979 to 1996. Over 30 years of cooling preceded 1979 and it has been now 18 years since the end of that 17 year warming that has driven essentially everything in the attribution chapter in the IPCC TAR.
One can find a longer warming period but it would appear to be very difficult to exceed a warming rate over about 1 degree per century with a longer analysis, well below the government standard for excessive warming.
“Man is the dumbest animal on earth.”
Paradoxically, he’s the smartest. Although, judging by grammar, spelling, and the level of attention to detail in the comments section of this website, I’m often led to wonder the veracity of that statement. No, let the deer organize a party to put out a forest fire; let skunks try to figure out how to cross a paved surface without becoming roadkill (never seems to happen up here in Northern Michigan;) or let termites try to figure out how to fumigate humans, and you can instantly see we’re not the dumbest animal. With two opposable thumbs, a keyboard, and bit of imagination, there is nothing that can stop us.
Oh, c’mon, you need a fine design on the petard, too.
========
My own highly advanced climate model projects additional data and trend indications will occur every coming year.
In 5 and 10 years from now we will have 23 years-1 month and 28 years-1 month trends to look at and all of us will be 5 and 10 years older.
Unfortunately, weather happens and climate science may still be presenting weather as climate.
Interpretation is like imagination. It’s limitless.
Self interested agendas provide limitless fuel for generating the endless heaps of public deceit needed to sustain any notion that needs preserving.
The era of institutionalized mendacity may last a millennium.
Thankfully we have places like this chronicling it all along the way.
Steve Oregon
Been meaning to ask you; Are you an Oregonian?
I’m from “Little Berkley”….Eugene.
Ron Richey
Of course. Portland area.
“Scientists to ‘fast-track’ evidence linking global warming to wild weather”
Looks like more desperation to keep the green mail alive. World economies are failing, but plenty of money for new models forecasting climate scare. 🙂
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-to-fasttrack-evidence-linking-global-warming-to-wild-weather-9773767.html
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
That quote has always worried and interested me. What it should have said, surely, was “before we start celebrating”.
Their baseline of natural climate to compare with observed climate would then be based on the assumption that they’ve quantified ALL the factors that make up global climate. If not, then you can’t know what the natural climate is and compare it to the observed climate.
Isn’t that the assumption of climate modeling itself?
Yes it is, Kevin. And, it was the basis for their claim that they “knew” that humans were causing Global Warming because they had accounted for ALL factors that affect Earth temperature. It HAD to be humans.
Their arrogance was stunning. That anybody believed them was shocking. That anybody still believes them is depressing.