Bob Tisdale has already effectively dealt a death-blow to Michael Mann’s claims, here: On Steinman et al. (2015) – Michael Mann and Company Redefine Multidecadal Variability And Wind Up Illustrating Climate Model Failings
But, this recent press release deserves some exposure for the sheer audacity of the claims made by Mann in it. I wonder if Mann is even cognizant of just how AWOL the climate models were at predicting what he claims?
From Penn State:
Interaction of Atlantic and Pacific oscillations caused ‘false pause’ in warming
The recent slowdown in climate warming is due, at least in part, to natural oscillations in the climate, according to a team of climate scientists, who add that these oscillations represent variability internal to the climate system. They do not signal any slowdown in human-caused global warming.
“We know that it is important to distinguish between human-caused and natural climate variability so we can assess the impact of human-caused climate change on a variety of phenomena including drought and weather extremes,” said Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State. “The North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans appear to be drivers of substantial natural, internal climate variability on timescales of decades.”
Mann, Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of geological sciences, University of Minnesota-Duluth and a former Penn State National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellow and Penn State researcher Sonya K. Miller looked at a combination of real-world observational data and state-of-the-art climate model simulations used in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to understand the competing contributions to climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere during the historic era. They report their results today (Feb 26) in Science.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) describes how North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures tend to oscillate with a periodicity of about 50 to 70 years. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) varies over a broader range of timescales. The researchers looked only at the portion of the PDO that was multidecadal — what they term the Pacific multidecadal oscillation (PMO).
Using a wide variety of climate simulations, the researchers found that the AMO and PMO are not significantly correlated; they are not part of the global “stadium wave” oscillation, as some researchers had claimed. What they found was that the Northern Hemisphere was warming more slowly, not because of the AMO — which has been relatively flat — but because of a sharply down-trending PMO.
The researchers conclude that the down-trending PMO and the unusual slowing of warming over the past decade are tied to heat burial beneath the tropical Pacific and a tendency for sustained La Niña type conditions. While there is paleoclimate data suggesting that this type of response could come from subtle features of climate change itself that climate models do not currently capture, the researchers note that the most likely explanation is the random excursions of the AMO.
“Our findings have strong implications for the attribution of recent climate changes,” said Mann. “Internal multidecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures likely offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.”
The researchers conclude that given past historical patterns of variation in the AMO and PMO, this situation will likely reverse and add to human induced warming in the future.
###
A self-contradictory statement.
It shows the claim of a “faux” Pause to be a crafted lie. A Gruber-ism.
What that statement does highlight though is the human-caused warming is lost in the natural oscillations of global climate. And then it is ludicrous to think that the warm-up mid-70s through 1998 was anything more than the result of phase-locked ascending nodes of the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations.
“And then it is ludicrous to think that the warm-up mid-70s through 1998 was anything more than the result of phase-locked ascending nodes of the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations.”
If that is the case, why haven’t we seen a decline in global temperatures during the downturns of the cycles? The pattern over the past 150 years has been periods of rapidly increasing temperatures interspersed with flat or slow increases which is consistent with anthropogenic forcing.
The natural variations could go create a natural upward-looking trend depending on your timescale. 150 years is nothing when looking at natural processes.
what caused the minoan, roman and medieval warm periods? how many SUV’s were on the road?
climate science simply cannot answer these questions, so having no answer they resort to superstition. they blame it on the “sins” or burning fossil fuels. the “evil eye” of witches in yet another form.
learned people were just as certain 500 years ago that witches were real as they are today that fossil fuels are drving the climate.
Here is Mann and Co’s (Steinman, Mann, Miller. 2015) own figure.
http://i60.tinypic.com/6z0tvo.jpg
In Panel C. note how even they they show the AMO and PMO cycles are in-phase until about 2000.
They want you to believe that the out-of-phase AMO character since 2000 is causal of the Pause. They want you to ignore the idea that such natural in-phase alignment from 1975 to 1998 can largely explain the global warming during this period. Indeed such in-phase alignment of the natural PMO and AMO cycles can largely explain all the global T anomalies since 1880.
First, a decine has not started instantly previously. A pause in rising, or at least slow start to cooling, can be seen in past records.
Second, the PMO likely didn’t flip until 2008, if history is the guide – and if that is true, the the pause started during their understanding of their “warming period” – which again is consistent with the past “warming” periods that did not see 30 years of straight warming, and instead only small jumps spurred solely by noteworthy El Nino events
Third, and most importantly, you seem to have missed the memo – AGW didn’t start until 1950, according to the IPCC. That is when CO2 broke free from their chosen “normal” level. So the warming periods circa 1870 and 1930 are not part of the “AGW” – they are natural warming out of the LIA.
The peoblem with that is, of course, the fact that there has only been about 12 years of “warming” during the 65 years the IPCC has outlined as the time of “catastrophic man made warming.” – and history of the cycles shows we probably won’t see more warming until about 2050, at which point the time of “agw” will have seen 12/100 years actually seeing warming.
why haven’t we seen a decline in global temperatures during the downturns of the cycles?”
For your education:
From Time Magazine, Monday June 24, 1974:
“Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.”
Read more here (from the Wayback machine): http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html
Along with a revisionist history by the Left, we are supposed to be ignorant the past so the Left can control the future with their lies in the present.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Ever heard of the “Little Ice Age” Luke? Was pretty cold the previous 400 years.
The trolling is appreciated, Luke. Thank you.
Could you please confirm that the failure of warm-mongers to express any form of regret for the pained suffered by the victims of Pachauri is indeed a demonstration of their utter lack of interest in elemental human rights? Please correct me if I’m wrong by pointing to a url in every warm-mongers outlet where you and your co-conspirators have expressed your solidarity with the victims of the perverted monster that has headed the IPCC for more than a decade. Thank you in advance.
So we have 150 years of anthropogenic warming now ? Some English history 100 – 150 years ago http://www.historyofengland.net/modern-general-history/general-history-100-to-500-years-ago
I like Lukes’ “rapidly increasing temperatures interspersed with flat or slow increases which is consistent with anthropogenic forcing”. So what caused the “rapidly increasing” 2 Deg C from 1659 to early 1700’s when there was negligible “Anthro forcing” Luke? Its not “consistent”.
That AMO curve (and the others as well) are just faked up Mannian math.
Note that one of the reviewers, I presume, forced Mann to add “Semi-empirical estimate ..” to the description of the chart.
I mean, when Mann is saying “Semi-empirical”, what do you think that really means. It could be anything including a random number generator.
—-
On a side-note, the AMO is either the driver of or is a very, very good proxy for whatever is driving the 60 year cycle in global temperatures (noting that the 60 years will vary by quite a bit through time, it could have been 300 years or 20 years at different times).
The AMO driver also means the GHG global warming signal is much lower than many make it out to be and, of course, Michael Mann cannot be trusted to do the calculations.
Luke, what the hell are you talking about? There has been significant fluctuation in temps over the last 150 years, unless of course, you are a disciple of Mann’s hokey schtick (sic). And despite a slow, steady rise in CO2, those temp fluctuations have continued and they correlate almost exactly with the fluctuations of the AMO & PDO. Notice Mann doesn’t even mention the sun. How so many climate ‘experts’ ignore the effect the sun has on out climate is simply astounding. Take a look at some real temp charts over the last 150+ years, even the NOAA ‘fixed’ charts (where they made the 30’s a little cooler than was actually recorded) and overlay them with AMO & PDO charts and you’ll see for yourself. Even solar activity charts which indicate a change in our climate several years after a dramatic change in solar activity–consistently enough for a 4th grader to recognize a pattern. Today, the PDO had been cool for a number of years and we are about to enter the cool cycle of the AMO and this will lead to increased cooling until around 2025-2030. And hence the process repeats.
I thought anthropogenic warming would be neglible before 1950. Am I wrong?
Hey Luke, how does a 150 year period of rapidly increasing temps, modulated by AMDO/PDO/ etc. give any credence to CAGW?
If anthropogenic CO2 forcing is real, it started about 100 years before humans really started emitting unnaturally high levels of CO2.
Do you lack intellect, honesty or both?
Well, Luke has hit ‘n’ run. Maybe he should change his screen name to Mr. T.
Draw a graph of natural variation, as claimed by M Mann. It does nothing until “the pause” starts, then it rises sharply. A perfect hockey-stick … and perfect nonsense.
joelobryan, you beat me to it.
‘false pause’? Will it still be a ‘false pause’ if surface temps cool? Time will tell and I await observations of the future.
which then be the present 🙂
Too true, Joe. But you know as well as anybody else the tune will then be, “Yeah but this is only temporary and warming will resume.” I’d expect that routine even if global temp dropped by 2C. (If that should happen, EVERYBODY will be hoping warming resumes!)
Well I can see why they reached that conclusion that the anomalous behavior is because of the “heat burial beneath the tropical Pacific.”
I presume that is an SI system based process, similar to “forcing”.
Evidently , it only occurs beneath the tropical Pacific, because at those times it is nighttime in the tropical Atlantic, so nothing ever gets buried beneath the tropical Atlantic.
They’re still trying to figure out why burial only occurs part of the time.
g
How can they tell that the heat trapped in the Pacific, if it in fact exists at all, comes from surface warming, and not from volcanic activity under the ocean? Just wondering since we are all attempting to determine the cause and not simply a correlation. it seems that there are an awful lot of assumptions that are being made.
The truth has been cremated.
I am shocked that they admit that they are only now considering these processes! how many times have their various proxies been here on WUWT claiming that these processes are well understood and accounted for in the models.
Dr. Mann is confused. I Ma sure he meant to say, “False Hockeystick” and “Real Pause”.
Naw – what he meant was Faux Paus
Good one……….
Just like his false Nobel prize win and countless other LIES. Everyone please support Mark Steyn’s legal defense fight, Here – Buy anything. http://www.steynstore.com/page11.html
“Using a wide variety of climate simulations, the researchers found that the AMO and PMO are not significantly correlated . . .”
or maybe the “wide variety of climate simulations” are not related?
“They do not signal any slowdown in human-caused global warming.”
How can one signal a slowdown of a signal that hasn’t been found?
/huh?
You get the logic backwards. First assume TCR>4K. Then see a smaller temp growth. => There is some reason which hides the growth.
The problem is the longer the hiatus comes, the smaller TCR is, if you don’t find massive natural variation.
So, natural warming on top of human induced warming.
It’s even worse than we thought.
… which is what we likely had 1978 to 1998. Not that bad. Followed by a very Real Pause. Next up in the coming 2 decades… the reversa, l as the AMO and PMO align for a 20-year descending node in their oscillations. Throw in a possible weak solar magnetic cycle or 2 or 3, and humanity could be heading for a calamity.
Mannic warming ensues, immeasurable in its immensity.
Lakes boiling, brimstone falling, cats and dogs sleeping together. Mass hysteria.
Don’t forget the cow jumps over the moon!
It is only a matter of time before the pause is attributed to chemtrails as a justification for potentially poisoning all of us. Don’t you love the way it was not subjected to any clinical evaluation? “Medication” for the planet without consent. Is this conditioning us for world government with unelected leaders? Nice of them to tell us.
See the Feb 2015 issue of National Geographic where they claim aircraft chemtrails are a significant cause of global warming as they trap heat.
The entire issue is an CAGW believers wet dream.
The trouble is the AMO is still in the warm phase.
When it starts going downhill, the temperature pause is likely to turn into a decline.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/mikey-discovers-ocean-cycles/
Hmmm. Seems the sleepy old Sun has been elbowed out of top slot for controlling earths climate and delivering the (coming) Imminent Catastrophic Great Cooling.. Now it’s up to the heat sloshing about in the oceans that has to deliver
The oceans don’t produce energy. They release energy. Guess where it came from?
It’s started. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
It has normally drop about 1°F in the past. Let’s wait and see
And I was thinking the same having looked at that yesterday.
Notice the colder bits are where summer/autumn is at the moment – what does that mean?
So, the Imminent Catastrophic Great Cooling has started (again). Let’s wait and see…..
“The oceans don’t produce energy. They release energy. Guess where it came from?”
Big AL has the answer “That 70000 degree inter core.”
Exactly. Looking at RSS that may already be true.
There also appears to be a lot of cool water in the tropical pacific down to 400 meters. When a strong La Nina and the AMO both move in harmony, things may get interesting.
Coli from Satellite Beach, Florida
I recall that not long ago Mann claimed the waters “off Cape Cod” are 21 degrees “above normal.” That because it’s just what Britannica says is the “average” temperature for the Gulf Stream. I wonder if the fool saw the reports and pictures about the “slushy” waves at Nantucket.
Mann and Co are throwing out random assertions with the intent to deceive.
… hoping that with enough garbage gobbledygook contradictions mixed in with a few facts, at least one will appear right everyone. That is the employment of the common Green-Progressive Liar tool called best termed as a “half-truth meant to deceive, by embedding uncontroversial true statements with false assertions.”
And when you question something there’ll be a bait’n’switch, like there is with the term, ‘climate change’.
When an well-informed skeptic questions AGW, they simply switch to “Oh, so you don’t believe atmospheric CO2 has heat trapping properties?” to try and make you look like a science d3*ier to the naive gullible public.
The pause is natural, but the warming was just Mann made.
Forget coming out of the LIA, forget oceanic influences, cloud cover, solar variabiity they only apply when it is pausing or cooling.
a case of Extreme Confirmation Bias if ever there was one.
i love this stuff. If it is warming; it is man made. If it is cooling; it is man made and if it is stable; it is man made.
God will protect you… but if you die in a violent, fiery unicycle crash it was god’s will. If you survive your violent, fiery unicycle crash, god was on your side.
Every time I see things like this, and the attempt to tease (torture?) data out of things where the signal is impossible to find, aka certain tree rings, I’m reminded of an old professor of mine, and what he told me. We were doing an experiment under outside funding which required a lot of signal amplification and filtering to even begin to see if there was a real signal there. His comment was:
It’s very hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if he isn’t there, but if you try hard enough you can convince yourself you hear him purr, whether he’s there or not.
Perfect description of the modern climate science data analysis…
And again we have a theory to explain a theory.
“And again we have a theory to explain a theory.”
Should be: and again we have another excuse to explain a GIGO climate model failure.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
Mann: “We focused on the Northern Hemisphere and the role played by two climate oscillations known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or “AMO” (a term I coined back in 2000, as recounted in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars) and the so-called Pacific Decadal Oscillation or “PDO” (we a use a slightly different term–Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation or “PMO” to refer to the longer-term features of this apparent oscillation).” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/
Saying he coined the term “AMO” seems almost as disingenuous as claiming to be a Nobel prize winner. If he wants to play that game, maybe A coined the term “PMO” here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/a-relationship-between-sea-ice-anomalies-ssts-and-the-enso/
According to Wikipedia:
Sue him, I say.
“They do not signal any slowdown in human-caused global warming.”
Correct, they merely show a stopping of it – but how can that even be?
So the first question is, was and will always be – how can natural fluctions stop something supposidly so powerful and destructive completely, but have no impact on creating it?
The second question is, of course, how the “agw” warming from circa 1990-2000 differs from what the IPCC describes as “natural” warming out of the Little Ice Age which was seen circa 1870-1880 and circa 1930-1940?
The “warming” is merely occuring on an every-60th-year timeline, and nearly identical rates of warming were seen around those 1870, 1930 and 1990 periods… how can they be so certain that the first 2 are natural and 3rd absolutely can’t be solely based off CO2s inclusion on the third? And If CO2 is the sole driver of the third, then why does it still perfectly match the first 2?
“The researchers conclude that given past historical patterns of variation in the AMO and PMO, this situation will likely reverse and add to human induced warming in the future.”
I disagree with the “human induced” part, but otherwise that is correct. And based off that past pattern the warming will be back circa 2050… so is that what their computer models show? If not, where are they getting their history? And if so, then why are the graphs from those models being given to the press not showing the “pause” (or even more likely, “cooling”) lasting another 35 years?
Or perhaps they do not signal any slowdown in human-caused global warming because the speed of the AGW component was a snails pace, and it will continue to be a snails pace, therefore, no change! For once he is right.
It is pleasing that Prof. Mann has finally agreed with us (whether he admits to this or not) that the natural variability of climate does dominate the greenhouse warming effect.
One more demonstration that Michael Mann is climatology’s answer to Gordon Gecko. At least he seems to be striving for that billing, consciously or not.
something is seriously wrong with Goggle News Science feeds re: IPCC and modeling Antarctic SIE as these have just leaked through –
http://www.westernjournalism.com/objective-behind-climate-change-economic-not-climatic/#4Q5Bv7pRxAZwryZe.97
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/antarctic-sea-ice-did-the-exact-opposite-of-what-models-predicted/
hmmmm
Ah, so it’s not just me that witnesses Google Science News as even more pro-warmist than the BBC? Someone at Google Science News is fast asleep. Ssshhh.
Green, government-guaranteed, temporarily-safe-from-market-uncertainties, captured-market investments are VERY attractive. So WHAT if the tax/ratepayers get screwed?
Damn lies about nature can only be maintained for a while in the face of a politically-uncaring natural phenomenon. The CAGW meme collapse is underway.
There is another thing wrong with Google News. Not a single American or Canadian major news source reported the IPCC chairman’s sex scandal. The UK media covered it and second tier news outlets here in the US covered it.
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=doSsa_u8_N7Fj2MLEe_YHZ7gcVkGM&q=Rajendra+Pachauri&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nL70VKPSIsyYgwT2lYDQCA&ved=0CCsQqgIwAA
The NYT certainly has virtually nothing about the IPCC sex scandal.
malicious silence. Just like the Ukraine takeover.
The perceptiveness of the WJ piece can be judged by the hysterical replies below it. Deserves wider circulation???
Breaking news!
“… Pacific and … Atlantic … appear to be … drivers of climate variability …”
Wow! How much taxpayer money has been burnt to figure this out.
Not an easy conclusion, I mean who would have thought this?
It obviously needs supercomputers and fearless scientists.
Obviously Michael Mann is not a favourite here, but give the guy credit – he has discovered natural variation, the AMO and the PMO. He might become a skeptic shortly.
Only if it will pay him better than his current swindle.
He must now attempt to weave this concept into the doom prophecy by correlating it’s causation it with AGW & CO2.
hmm… ‘cousin It’ visiting again.
Good luck trying to get a grant that proposes to investigate “Mechanistic insights and projections of non-linear, chaotic natural climate variability.”
Whereas natural variability implicitly implies something beyond man’s control, climate scientists realized 30 years ago the funding pay dirt lies (figuratively and literally) in hyping an alarmist claim about a man made causal factors that can conceivably be controlled. The Green fascists love the idea of controlling CO2, because it directly allows controlling industrial production and energy extraction wealth flows.
Its like the 80 year old heart surgeon tasting butter and eggs for the first time?
“While there is paleoclimate data suggesting that this type of response could come from subtle features of climate change itself that climate models do not currently capture, the researchers note that the most likely explanation is the random excursions of the AMO.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Translation:
“While there is real data that indicates our models are garbage, we prefer to believe it was just a hiccup and that our funding will resume shortly. Nothing to see here, move along.”
Slow down? When was it moving fast? Global temps are unbelievably stable. I’ll try to be cool and get stressed over every fraction of a degree wiggle of uncertainty…
Mann et al, and the rest of the climate science community, are proving through peer reviewed climate science that it is “natural variation” causing the observed pause in global temperature rise when compared to Climate Models.
What they appear to be saying is that the climate record needs to be adjusted for “natural variation”, then the catastrophic human induced warming, predicted by the models, can be observed. I thought climate was “natural variability” in the weather!
I would give more credence to this hypothesis if they had said this before the event. Making a prediction of the event, after it occurs, has limited credibility and little scientific value.
What I get from this press release is a garbled up thought saying it doesn’t matter what you are seeing, even if we enter into a new ice age soon, eventually the AGW is going to come to the surface and it will be worse than we thought.
“Internal multidecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures likely offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.”
So, just how freakin’ cold do they think it is supposed to be right now? In their world, without AGW, we would be headed into another mini-ice-age.
That’s the funny thing; they always claim we have made the planet too hot but never say what the right temperature is.
To give an idea of just how foolish it all is, in the late 70s temps in Greenland actually dropped to levels not seen there since the LIA. This despite AGW supposedly starting in 1950. So in the middle of out of control man made warming, the location with the best understanding of its past temps saw temps indicating the LIA wasn’t necessarily over. Imagine how cold it would have been without their supposed unnatural warming!
Exactly! Why is our existence here, and the ingenuity that we have employed, somehow automatically unnatural? I have always been fascinated by how fast nature obliterates the evidence of our activities. I feel it is collectively arrogant to tell ourselves that we are omnipotent over our planet
The higher the sensitivity, the colder we would now be without man’s effort. You’d better hope we’ve bounced naturally out of the lows of the Holocene, ‘cuz if man’s brought us out, we can’t keep up the heavy lifting for long.
==============================
Mann-o-mann, here is my contribution to Monday Funny …
Illusory Data Rings False
http://www.maxphoton.com/redressing-manns-hockey-stick-fallacy/
HEY MAN! THAT’S MY DAUGHTER!…just kidding [:-)
She winks. Fabulous.
========
“The researchers conclude that given past historical patterns of variation in the AMO and PMO, this situation will likely reverse and add to human induced warming in the future.”
Does the report specify when and how much it will add? We need that info so we can heap ridicule on them when it doesn’t happen.
In my office at the Pentagon, I have a sticky on the wall that says “2016 Ice-free Arctic Summer”, a prediction made by Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School using RASM. I’m looking forward to asking them in Fall of 2016 why it didn’t happen, and then diverting their “excess” funding to more useful research.
Does the current temperature of the surface of the Pacific means the La Nina?
http://oi57.tinypic.com/9zra6v.jpg
CAGW meme come tumbling down like the walls of Jericho? WOO-HOO le the joy begin! I love such back pedaling.
“While there is paleoclimate data suggesting that this type of response could come from subtle features of climate change itself that climate models do not currently capture, the researchers note that the most likely explanation is the random excursions of the AMO.”
Translation, Mann’s work leads him to believe that the medieval Warm Period was not global, but was instead held down by LaNina like effects in the tropics. The implications are that such a long term negative feedback in the climate would hold down global warming and therefore warming in climate models is vastly overstated.
I have heard Mann agree to this statement(including ‘vastly overstated’ when giving a talk to scientists. “I have a reputation out there as some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback.”
It is good that Mann is attempting to use the phrase “natural variability.” But he does not know what it means. Climate Science is the study of natural variability in climate. For Mann, “natural variability” is something you drag in as needed to explain away falsified predictions and ludicrously failed computer models.
‘this situation will likely reverse’ of course they give no time line nor even how ‘likely’ this is so once again climate ‘science; employs the ‘heads you lose tails I win’ approach . Worthless BS from an master of such approaches .
To start the Mann’s AMO curve is wrong, this is what it should look like (blue line)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AM-LPF.gif
That press release is just LOL. So many choice quotes of utter inanity.
This one is a blockbuster. Knowing natural variability is important and doing something about it is two completely different things. Reminds of a small claims court TV like Judge Judy where the defendant claims their defense for not paying a loan was, “I told them I was going to pay it, I just never did because I didn’t”. The last part of the quote is a doozer, like they have any means at all to measure the effects human-caused climate change on weather extremes. Utter nonsense, complete fabrication.
The closing line is worth mentioning also due to the sheer stupidity demonstrated.
.
Are they really saying proof of human induced global warming remaining a crisis is that natural variability stopped it? I have heard religious leaders arguing better proof for the existence of God and yes I know there is no rational scientific argument for the existence of God.
I know there is no rational scientific argument for the existence of God.
Yes there is. Bayesian Statistics. People believe it. –> There must be some truth there. QED.
Sarc on: “the Ice Age is just part of natural variability and hasn’t stopped mankind’s warming of the planet”
“…using historical climate model realizations…”
LOL
In other words, “We were wrong because we are right! Just wait.”
(Ironically, if Mickey hadn’t pulled his nature trick, the stick would have been closer to reality. That is “closer” but still out there.)
“looked at a combination of real-world observational data and state-of-the-art climate model simulations”
Translation: “looked at land temperature records that were adjusted to more closely resemble our wildly fanciful climate models”
This rewriting of their own data and history should be grounds for removal from their jobs and possible prison time for fraud.
The key message of the hockey stick graph was that natural climate variability over the past millennium has been close to a flatline until the twentieth century and that a sharply accelerating warming since then could only be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Now, after two decades of no warming, Dr. Mann tells us that natural oceanic oscillations which have been going on for millennia have completely over-ridden the planet busting power of AGW. If so, he appears to have conclusively refuted his own hockey stick and, as the same oscillations were previously at play in the warm phase of their cycle, he has also explained the cause of the late twentieth century warming.
One can only hope Dr. Mann receives full credit for his masterful debunking of the hockey stick fraud as well as the CAGW hysteria and I am proud to be among the first to congratulate him.
The pause that satisfices?
This is news?
Isn’t this essentially item #33 on the 66 item list of excuses for the pause over at Hockey Schtick?
dis-enligthenment on/ (enlightenment off/)
Mann, so you mean, like, the various different length periods of no warming in the various GASTA datasets and LTT datasets are just unimportant artifacts of a fossil industry con$piracy?
dis-enlightenment off/ (enlightenment back on/)
John
Mann’s approach is to close the barn door after the horse gets out.
That still leaves the horse manure.
Isn’t Mann the one who published a paper blaming sulfur from chineese coal is the reason it hadn’t warmed as expected? I guess he gave up on it when it gained no traction?? It amazes me how many different explanations are given for this lack of warming, yet anyone suggesting that co2 simply doesn’t have the expected effect is lambasted.
This is exactly what small children do when an adult catches them doing something bad like raiding the cookie jar or flushing all the napkins down the toilet: they come up with the strangest stories increasingly unbelievable to explain how they didn’t do anything (ninjas snuck in and ate the cookies!).
The ninjas were turtles. Saw it on TV. Must be the truth.
Is it the models that are wrong? No. It is the weather that is wrong.
So basic summary of this paper: using models to show that models are reliable. Gosh, what a platoon of idiots.
I like “platoon of idiots” but unfortunately these people are not idiots, but deliberately obfuscationist.
It’s the year 2025, and the Nuremberg Climate Trials are about to begin. Let’s resolve now to be merciful, to be the better Man.
I thought I saw somewhere a statement along the lines of “we ran the models using only natural forcings, and then we ran the models including anthropogenic forcings. The rise in temperatures since the (add your favourite decade here) can only be explained by including the anthropogenic forcings”. Which of course means that they fully understand all natural forcings.
I can not see any better confirmation of the Soon and Briggs paper on the irreducibly simple model than what is said in this statement from Mann and his cohorts. The models do not capture major characteristics of the climate system, such as what Mann calls “variability internal to the climate system”. Thus they can not explain the climate system, since they can not explain what Mann assumes to be “variability internal to the climate system”.
If scientists were members of a profession (like doctors, lawyers, and accountants), having to adhere to a code of ethics of their professional body, Michael Mann, by now, would have long been hauled before a disciplinary committee and struck-off and banned from practicing as a scientist.
Sadly, scientists do not have to uphold the highest standards demanded by a professional body.
Sadly, Michael Mann tarnishes the reputation of scientists.
So let me get this straight: they used computer simulations to determine the correlations between two natural variables?
So these “geniuses” have “proved” that the two variables are not correlated – in their model? Ha ha ha how stupid are these dopes! What bearing does this have on real life?
I see nothing inconsistent with natural variation.
The Mann admits to natural climate variability. Well, that’s a start. Er, maybe it’s ALL natural variation and we have little to do with it.
You mean natural climate variations overwhelm man made climate variations? Is that different from what the skeptics have been saying all along? And doesn’t that say something about how well the climate modelers can model natural climate variations?
Piltdown Mann
Using their numbers the human fraction of 0.85 degree C warming is 0.3 degree, In reality it is less than 0.1 degree, but in the publicity it becomes 1.0 degree?
Mann:
Total poppycock. It is VERY important here to keep in mind the chronology of Mann’s 1998 paper and the education of the world about the PDO and AMO. The PDO was discovered in 1997 by BIOLOGIST Steven Hare. In 1998 the PDO was basically not even on the radar of climatologists.
What does that chronology mean? That all of the “WE KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CLIMATE” statements of 1998 (and evena few years past) were totally igronant of the elephant in the room – the PDO.
AND YET, since they KNEW EVERYTHING at that time (1998), there was nothing else TO know. Human activity was the end all and be all of anything affecting the climate. Outside of humans the climate was FLAT. This was the main theme of Mann’s 1998 paper, after all – the basically flat climate until humans started putting extra CO2 into the air. THE PDO WAS NOT PART OF THAT AT ALL.
And, as is done in so many sciences, whenever a paradigm of any sort is overthrown, it only takes weeks for the involved scientitst to all run around claiming, “We knew that all the time!”
Ahh, the brazenness. Mann is NOW saying, “WE KNEW THAT ALL THE TIME!”
But, no, Señor Mann, you did NOT. And stop running around pretending that you did.
Oh, the Slick Willie-ness of this, Slick Mickey. Or is it Tricky Mikey?
Note that he refers to a flat trend for about 18 years as “warming more slowly”. AS IN DANG NEAR NEGATIVE WARMING, SLICK MIKEY? Or as in Zero sure is warming more slowly.
And no again, Slick Mikey. ASSERTING that there is heat missing when you have (at best) ambiguous evidence of such heat is pretty much lying. Claiming it is down where it can’t be found or not found – that is only a sneaky way of pretending something is true long before it is proven to exist. Nothing can be “tied to anything” when the “anything” itself hasn’t proven unambiguously to exist. And, no, you or Kevin Trenberth wanting it to exist doesn’t make it exist.
False pause? Well at least it is not a fake pause.
Mr. Mann it is a well proven fact that the missing heat can be found in Uranus.
Did these conditions also occur from 1880 until 1910 and 1940 until 1970 when previous pauses occurred?