By S. Fred Singer
Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?
Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 5. The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming. If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.
This paper is turning out to be a “big deal.” The publisher of Science has even issued a special press release, promoting the NCDC claim of continued slow but steady warming.
Of course, NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces. It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas.
Now watch the sparks fly — as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:
There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis:
the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming.
Then there are also dozens of scientists who have published research papers, purporting to provide an explanation for the reported pause. Yours truly turns out to be amongst these. They will all be mightily disappointed if their intellectual efforts turn out to be for naught.
But hold on. NCDC may turn out to be quite wrong. Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems. Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures — which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations. If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].
Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998. This finding is confirmed by other, independent instrumental data — and also by (non-instrumental) proxy records (from tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments). This leads to important far-reaching consequences that are more fully discussed and referenced in the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) [search NIPCCreport.org, esp. the CCR-II report of 2013].
UN-IPCC claims for AGW undermined
IPCC-4 [2007] and IPCC-5 [2013] both present claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that are based mainly on reported surface warming from 1979 to 2000. In the absence of such a warming trend, the IPCC claims become invalid; there would be no human-caused greenhouse warming in the 20th century – and certainly not earlier.
It is worthwhile, therefore, to re-examine carefully the absence of warming in the last two decades of the 20th century.
The satellite results of near-zero warming trend are fully backed by radiosonde data from balloon flights — notwithstanding spurious claims by Santer et al [in Int’l J of Climatology 2008; see full discussion by Singer in Energy&Envir 2013]. The absence of a tropical “Hotspot” (a once-controversial upper-troposphere warming trend) “makes the cheese more binding.”
Sea-surface temperatures (SST) show only a slight warming – as do night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT), assembled by the Hadley group. Data on ocean heat content before 2000 are spotty and not very useful. In any case, the interpretation of vertical temperature profiles would require factoring in ocean circulation at different levels.
Proxy data of various types, assembled by Fredrik Ljungqvist in Sweden, and independently by NOAA scientist David Anderson, generally show no warming; Michael Mann never released his post-1979 proxy data, and has even denied their existence (in a personal 1990 email); one suspects that the reason is they show no warming.
A quick word about the observed (and genuine) warming interval 1910-40. It can be seen not only in surface thermometers at weather stations, temperature records from ships, but in all published proxy records. Alas, I could not find any atmospheric temperature data for that period. It is generally agreed, however – including by IPCC –that this warming is of natural origin and not from GH gases.
Thus there is no evidence whatsoever of any GH warming from human-released CO2 — during the whole of the 20th century or earlier.
The bottom line
One can certainly argue about whether the NCDC results are correct –and I expect many months of back-and-forth. So, has global warming really stopped? We will know for sure in just a few years.
There will certainly be debate also about my proposition of no evidence at all for AGW. We will need a persuasive answer to the puzzle — why do land thermometers show a warming before 2000, but not after 2000? I may have an answer, but must first try to convince my colleagues.
One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show. This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.
*****************************
This article originally published on American Thinker
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and a founding director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project; in 2014, after 25 years, he stepped down as president of SEPP. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.
*********************************************************************
Motl in support of Singer:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/01/rss-amsu-temperatures-1979-2014-grouped.html
As per Motl’s nine-year graph, note that the decade 2005-14 may well have been cooler than the prior decade 1995-2004, despite the allegedly “warmest year on record” of 2014 (actually seventh in RSS).
The gatekeepers will find it necessary to cool the recent past when we reach the decade 2007-16, since 1997-2006 is likely to have been warmer.
Instead of a running average, we may find that, while 2001-10 was warmer than 1991-2000, the present decade 2011-20 will be cooler. The cooling pattern of the late 1940s to ’70s, following the warmer 1910s to ’40s, appears to be repeating.
So let me get this straight:
1. Hansen – if the pause goes 10 years, the models are invalid
2. NASA – well…actually, 15 years
3. Santer – well…. actually, 17 years
4. Dozens of scientists publishing papers explaining the pause
5. UN-IPCC AR5 says the models probably are wrong (due to the pause), substitutes “expert opinion” for sensitivity instead of using the models.
6. NCDC says, never mind, if you take out the satellite data, put buoy data in instead, adjust the buoy data upwards to match the admittedly less accurate ship data from previous years, then weight the upward adjusted buoy temps to be a bigger part of the over all trend, and poof, the pause never happened at all.
So is there one model. any model, the predicted the temperature rise in the areas of the world that this new analysis shows to be warmer than previously thought? I bet not one, because if ANY of them got it right, they would have predicted this specific analysis. So, EVEN IF this analysis is right, the modes are STILL wrong.
Not that this will stop these results from being quoted by Obama the moment it becomes convenient.
Prior to 1., all warming was solely due to CO2, which trumps all, and none attributable to natural variation.
4A. Ur . . . Em . . It would have warmed if it weren’t natural variation which now trumps CO2.
They flip flop more than a politician, but then again this is really about politics and has nothing to do with science.
Bonjour Fred
Do you remember the meeting in Paris in the Procop restaurant; it was 7 years ago and I never thought that the climate problems would take such an importance in the political and economical world; I think COP 21 would be the opportunity to try to make such a meeting in october in Paris ; I know a lot of people asking in the same way
Sincerely
Frederic Sommer
The reason we can say the warming has stopped for over 18 years is that that is how far back you can go from today and still get a trend of 0, using satellite data. There is no cherry-picking, although it is a construct. It’s significance lies in what it says about the GCMs; that they have failed miserably. They are fundamentally flawed. Another important point is that, to Warmists horror, the Halt just keeps getting longer, although there might be a hitch if El Nino strengthens in coming months, and that’s a big if. By Paris, it will likely be in the vicinity of 19 years.
It appears that even Science magazine are running scared about Karl et al. They’ve just let through a bunch of comments:
http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.aaa5632
Not a single message of support.
Should there be an effort to get the paper retracted?
Yes.
For the sake of logic.
If we let this pass we let anyone set contradictory principles to be accepted in any fields.
Don’t forget, Science is in part a news magazine. For years they promoted interest in the concept of AGW in order to promote their mag. Now they sense an even bigger story developing — that AGW may be controversial. One begins to see this in some other news services.
The alarmists don’t know it yet, but there’s gonna be a BRIC fight in Paris. Some media may sense the aura of not yet shed blood already.
====================
This is hopeful information. Thanks for posting it. Elsewhere, I speculated that Karl’s paper was blatantly tone deaf, and could backfire. Perhaps it now is. Opens up not just the pause/model discrepancy (which the paper does NOT eliminate), it opens up the whole past adjustments can of worms. Perfect timing, six months formit to fester before Paris.
This is the first of many papers in the next few months that are going to conclude that there’s no pause. I’ve seen this movie before.
Not a single message of support.
====
Someone needs to ask what’s going to happen to all those hundreds of papers, by climate scientists, explaining the ‘pause’…….
It’s amazing most of the leftist or environmental publications will have an immediate warning in the first paragraph that the “deniers” will try to refute this adjustment and that they are all liars or idiots. Talk about a guilty conscience and protesting too much. Can this scam be any more obvious? Do people have any common sense anymore?
Charlie, there was an employee of the dental college where I worked who was stealing aluminum ADA signage and cashing in the aluminum. His cover move (MO), was to be the first to report the theft as they were under his union jurisdiction for installation. He was eventually caught stealing and his position was abolished and assigned to other craftsmen. I sense the same sort of CYA is going on when they talk about going after skeptics as racketeers!
Reminds me of the old tale about the ex-con workman who wheeled out a barrow covered with a tarpaulin from his workplace. He was stopped by security, who whisked off the tarpaulin, and found nothing underneath. They asked what he was nicking. “Wheelbarrows, of course!” came the reply.
Common sense vacated many people about the same time computers became ubiquitous in the western countries.
Can they say truthfully that both moored and drift buoys have increased global coverage of temperature data by 15%? That seems like a very large percentage.
But if the number is small to start with, it won’t take as much additional coverage to increase by a given percentage. The sum will not be that large either.
Perhaps a several hundred percent increase might give the coverage necessary to really see the big picture…
I’m just a regular bloke whut got interested in climate science
… so they reconfigured data in order to disprove something that they previously claimed did not exist in the first place?
science seems really different now from what I remember in school
but I only made it through 15th grade
kinda glad I bailed out early
uh … may I rephrase
so the reconfigured data clearly shows that what was clearly not there before is still not there?
progress
at a melting glacial pace
You have the right suspicion.
Who cares when you or anyone quits formal learning?
You have learnt how to spot rubbish.
Thanks, my friend! I quit college too, but I earned a pension and I get to satisfy my mind before I die (I hope).
actually I have a PhD … no, just kidding
isn’t this phase 2 of the walk back?
as in…
1 your’re nuts and you’re seeing things
2 ok, there’s something there, but we can explain it
3 oops, we can’t explain it
4 we told you the whole time flying saucers were real
😉
seriously, tacit admission that there is something in the observed data that must be explained away
this is gonna be a great show
Original title of the NOAA study: “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”
NOAA website [Updated at 3:45 p.m. ET: Headline truncated; no longer refers to original study title. Title was revised today by the journal Science at the time of publication]
Possibly the use of “possible” in the original title was a Freudian Slip?
My take is that this may have the opposite political effect of want was intended. After years of telling us how certain scientists were that the earth was warming a certain amount per century and that it was due to manmade carbon and that it was going to be catastrophic….97% sure….warmest year ever etc….now they are telling us that they don’t even know what the global temperature was for the last couple of decades and whether or not it was rising.
TLDR – After posturing so much certainty, this study introduces uncertainty in the most basic element of the hypothesis….
+10
Excellent point Mark!………..
Yep, you get it.
So it would seem Tom Karl’s credibility just ran off with Trenberth’s missing heat, and they’re both hiding at the bottom of the ocean until this all blows over.
Individuals at NCDC are getting carelessly reckless(and desperate)
in their old age.
Very bad.
Or, they believe they are protected, and have nothing to worry about.
Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures — which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations. If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003
However UAH and RSS are not truly global, they don’t cover the poles either (or high areas like the Himalyas). RSS TLT from 70S to 82.5N,
True, they don’t.
So perhaps the heat is missing where the satellites can’t chase it (my, how coy).
But if it is hiding where there happens to be ice then… so what?
The heat used in phase changes of ice to liquid water means that the temperature won’t change – no AGW!
OK, maybe albedo changes. But little light reaches the Poles anyway.
This is, therefore, trivial.
Correction.(help mods)
True, they don’t.
So perhaps the heat is missing where the satellites can’t chase it (my, how coy).
But if it is hiding where there happens to be ice then… so what?
The heat used in phase changes of ice to liquid water means that the temperature won’t change – no AGW!
OK, maybe albedo changes. But little light reaches the Poles anyway.
This is, therefore, trivial.
So you agree that Singer was mistaken in his original post? Plenty of light reaches the polar regions in summer.
Phil, what are you talking about?
Nevermind.
A rule the NCDC and Karl apparently never learned: never defend the indefensible. Taking satellites out of your data does not make them go away.
A rule for skeptics to follow here: Napoleon’s dictum, never interrupt an enemy in the process of making a mistake. No retraction request. Let this blatant nonsense hang out there and fester. The stench will reach Paris.
Eventually, somebody’s going to have to go out and ring the bell and shout “bring out your dead”.
Sorry couldn’t help myself…
no mention of the 25 + the volcanoes erupting under the oceans emitting most of the Co2 ? WHY NOT http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports_weekly.cfm
What’s all the fuss about? IPCC lead author Phillip Lloyd has a 2015 study of the ice cores that shows that the normal temp difference over 100 year intervals is about 1 C. This is for the last 8,000 years.
We’ve had about 0.85C warming since 1880, so what is unusual about this warming for the last 135 years and at the end of a minor ice age? NOTHING. Here is the abstract————-
Abstract
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
I agree. Is climate 30 years, 300 years, or much larger cycles? We are apparently naive by nature as our species’ residency on the planet is relatively recent and our verifiable records are quite small.
It all might have a relationship to the human lifespan, no?
Science entering the realm of comedy,
out with the D word and in with the Cs: Cranks and Contrarians
How global warming cranks influence legitimate science.
and the whiners –
Kevin Trenberth – “Yes, I have certainly been influenced by deniers and their commentary, and I have written several articles rebutting flawed articles. … It is indeed very annoying when the media pick up on one denier point that has no basis and gives it great attention. So I have no doubt that “seepage” occurs”.
Michael Mann – “The whole concept of a “pause” or “hiatus” arose because of a concerted framing effort by climate change deniers and contrarians, and many in the climate research community fell victim to that framing all too predictably”.
my bolds
Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems.
Our team is going to have fun with this one!
Will any of this slow the deployment of the windmills ?
At some point someone has to say,…. enough already !!!!
Think of the legacies being left to the children of the proponents.
Another big wind installation has recently been erected in one of the last vestiges of the continent’s tall grass prairies, in Osage Co, OK. The political shenanigans which secured approval for the project were a sight to behold, with cash payments to local town council officials for “beautification” projects, etc. The Osage Nation owns all mineral rights on their Osage County reservation lands and sued the wind utility for failing to pay for onsite limestone excavations used to make concrete foundations for the towers. A judge actually sided with the wind utility with one of the most pretzel- logic decisions ever handed down, saying that he didn’t see any reason that the company should have to pay since the stone was just going to be put back in the ground, anyway. One might suspect that the judge is financially a lot closer to retirement now, since the issue threatened to halt the project worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
When it was pointed out that nearby Kaw Lake is a major winter roost destination for our nation’s symbol, the Bald Eagle and eagle deaths by bird slicer were sure to follow, Pres. Obama intervened and gave the windgen operators permission to kill 3 eagles a year. When it was also pointed out that this area is also home to rapidly diminishing numbers of Prairie Chickens, who have no tolerance whatsoever for any building or artifice made by man within their breeding territory. The answers from the Green wind supporters were the typical “but cats kill birds…” and such. One Osage tribal member said “I’d like to meet the cat that can kill an Eagle.”
Any number of laws governing Osage Indian rights were swept aside and ignored, to get approval for the project.
The windy operators made great inroads against local opposition to the project with not only a campaign of rhetoric about clean energy and saving the planet, but they also told great tales about how the local school district would benefit from million$ of annual ad valorem tax payments, the facts of which were later unhappily discovered by the locals that the company had secured a 5 year moratorium of said tax payments.
BS, greed and corrupt power from top to bottom.
On the road to Paris there is a lot of rubbish.
On the road to dystopia.
The weakness of the efforts of Karl, et al, is best illustrated by accepting, for purposes of argumentation, that all their data manipulation has been done well. Then by their own Figure 1, the box-plot showing temperature data in the period labelled “hiatus” included the value 0.0 trend in the confidence interval (CI) of the old data, and now still includes the value 0.0. And this is using the 90%, which has the smallest CI one can plausibly use.
it may be Aussie weather, but surely this attempt to wipe out the Pause couldn’t have come at a worse time!
5 June: ABC: Alkira Reinfrank: Canberra’s extreme run of overnight lows ‘only seen every 10 to 15 years’
Since early Monday morning Canberrans have spent more hours in temperatures below zero than above.
Overnight, Canberrans shivered through a low of -7 degrees, with mercury only climbing above zero after 9:30am.
This follows Monday’s cold temperatures which saw 20 centimetres of snow fall on the New South Wales ski resorts and Canberra region, the -7C lows experienced on Tuesday morning- which matched temperatures in the Snowy Mountains, and Wednesday’s -5C lows…
Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Sean Carson said temperature lows seen this week, along with last August’s extreme run of lows only occurred once a decade.
“August last year saw a pretty impressive run of overnight lows, where we saw eight consecutives nights below -5C, with the lowest night in that sequence getting all the way down to -8C,” he said.
“But prior to that it is probably something we only see every 10 to 15 years where we get such cold minimums.”…
Mr Carson said this “impressive” run of temperatures was more common in the 1970s.
***”It used to be fairly regular before the 1970s, before we saw a lot of development across Canberra, which did give Canberra a little bit of heat coming from industry,” he said…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/extreme-frosty-mornings-continue-in-canberra/6520778
Australia is quite a big place and has had pretty underwhelming temperatures across the board since about December last year. The rain also came back to most areas, which also has caused lots of silence in alarmist quarters, lest their previous hysteria about never ending drought be remembered
wickedwenchfan –
this is the Gaurdian in full madness mode-
“Climate change
Climate change making droughts in Australia worse as rain patterns shift”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/31/climate-change-making-droughts-in-australia-worse-as-rain-patterns-shift
“record rains rains triggered so much new growth across Australia that the continent turned into a giant green carbon sink to rival tropical rainforests including the Amazon, our new research shows”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/record-rains-turned-australia-into-a-giant-green-global-carbon-sink
The ski season started a week early too.
I firmly believe that using the term “pause” has problems. Pause infers that the previous trend upwards will continue once the ‘pause’ finishes. The is exactly the inference the warmists want.
I prefer the term “plateau” since that accurately describes the near horizontal time period without any inference of which way it will go next – up or down.
We could well be in for a downward trend when the plateau ends and there are many at the pointy end of this debate suggesting that outcome. We are in fact in an interglacial phase of unknown duration.
We could have indeed reached peak global warming!
So let’s all begin calling it a PLATEAU from now on. Keep the debate focused without unnecessary concessions.
john soldier,
You’re right about the connotations of the word “pause”, but I don’t like your solution.
I don’t know much about the art of war or the Chinese dude that everyone likes to quote but I think he’d be with me on this one.
“Pause” is their word; we can either launch a frontal assault on its spurious semantic significance or we just co-opt the word and serve it back to them with whatever inflection we choose.
(on a more awkward note; it would be worth looking up the difference between infer and imply.)
How about plateaupause
Already taken by an semi-endangered marsupial in Tasmania.
I think that’s an Australian monotreme…
: > )
Sorry Paul, I didn’t see your comment. Beat me to it again….
What can you expect from a bunch of climate pause deniers?