From the University of Edinburgh:
Warming slow-down not the end of climate change, study shows
A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending, but a natural blip in an otherwise long-term upwards trend, research shows.
In a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data, results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation.
The findings support the likelihood that a current hiatus in the world’s year-on-year temperature increases – which have stalled since 1998 – is temporary.
Scientists from the University of Edinburgh analysed real-world historic climate records from 1782 to 2000, comparing them with computerised climate models for the same timescale.
They were able to separate the influence on climate trends of man-made warming – such as from greenhouse gas emissions – and of natural influences in temperature – such as periods of intense sunlight or volcanic activity.
This showed that random variations can cause short term interruptions to climate patterns in the form of a pause or surge in warming, in both the real data and in the models, typically lasting up to a decade. Extreme natural forces, such as strong volcanic eruptions, were shown to disrupt climate trends for decades.
The research highlights the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate, when particles produced can reflect sunlight from Earth, causing long-lasting cooling. The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 was among the biggest in recent times, causing a so-called year without summer. Scientists estimate that, if it occurred today, it would cause a 20-year climate hiatus.
Their study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, was supported by the European Commission.
Dr Andrew Schurer, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who led the research, said: “Human activity is causing the word to warm, and natural variability can cause this trend to slow down or speed up. Our study backs scientific understanding that climate change can experience periods of hiatus, but the overall trend is towards a warmer planet.”
###
This has to qualify as one of the worst press releases we’ve ever seen via Eurekalert. The don’t give the name of the paper, the DOI, or any links to it. We are required to look it up, because, you know, these people are just too busy saving the world to stoop to such serf-like tasks.
Determining the likelihood of pauses and surges in global warming
Andrew P. Schurer, Gabriele C. Hegerl and Stephen P. Obrochta
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064458/full
Abstract
The recent warming “hiatus” is subject to intense interest, with proposed causes including natural forcing and internal variability. Here we derive samples of all natural and internal variability from observations and a recent proxy reconstruction to investigate the likelihood that these two sources of variability could produce a hiatus or rapid warming in surface temperature. The likelihood is found to be consistent with that calculated previously for models and exhibits a similar spatial pattern, with an Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation-like structure, although with more signal in the Atlantic than in model patterns. The number and length of events increases if natural forcing is also considered, particularly in the models. From the reconstruction it can be seen that large eruptions, such as Mount Tambora in 1815, or clusters of eruptions, may result in a hiatus of over 20 years, a finding supported by model results.
Key Points
- The recent hiatus is not unusual in the context of the last 230 years
- Models agree with observations regarding likelihood and pattern of events
- Likelihood increases if natural forcings (e.g., volcanic) are also considered
Figures as they were provided in the preview, no captions given.
I’d tend to believe them more if they could actually show a Tambora style eruption that has occurred in the last 15-20 years, and also explain why the effect of Pinatubo was so short lived if in fact volcanoes are affecting global climate as they say.
I think Willis does a far better job of explaining it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/stacked-volcanoes-falsify-models/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2015-04-02_at_4.30.55_AM.png
As one can see the volcanic aerosol index since year 2000 is close to zero.
Well, I suppose that the paper might make reference to Dark Gasses or Frigidaire Gasses. But the abstract suggests that a 20 year depression in things would originate with the noted eruptions in your graph. Though if this is so then it’s an open question whether there’s legitimacy to it of itself, or just can-kicking to save a failing hypothesis.
Oh, ye of little faith!
You have to just believe.
“Facts are useless in emergencies!”
-D. Byrne
“Facts lost
Facts are never what they seem to be
Nothing there!
No information left of any kind
Lifting my head
Looking for danger signs
There was a line
There was a formula
Sharp as a knife
Facts cut a hole in us
There was a line
There was a formula
Sharp as a knife
Facts cut a hole in us
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
The feeling returns
Whenever we close out eyes
Lifting my head
Looking around inside
The island of doubt
It’s like the taste of medicine
Working by hindsight
Got the message from the oxygen
Making a list
Find the cost of opportunity
Doing it right
Facts are useful in emergencies
The feeling returns
Whenever we close out eyes
Lifting my head
Looking around inside.
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don’t do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don’t stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…”
Stop showing actual observed data! This does not agree with the models!
So if this is an excuse for ‘the pause’, what would be the real reason?
In addition, at least from skimming through the article, I don’t see them claiming recent volcanic activity to have caused a hiatus. They actually state in their discussion/conclusion that volcanic activity has been relatively weak recently.
Aran. You are on target. This is just throwing mud on the wall to see if it will stick and be seen as the reason for he nearly 20 year pause. Of course, the mud won’t stick. But the press release can be cited between now and the Paris meeting. Expect a great number of explanations, denials, and excuses for the pause between now and the Paris meeting.
“They were able to separate the influence on climate trends of man-made warming – such as from greenhouse gas emissions – and of natural influences in temperature – such as periods of intense sunlight or volcanic activity.” It would be interesting to see how they accomplished this. All in all it seems to be just another denial of facts to match their biases.
I expect they did a multi-variable regression, got some numbers, and proclaimed them “truth”.
Uh… Yeah… Volcanoes… that’s it… Volcanoes… Yes…
How is this paper any different from Matthew England’s tendentious study (WUWT post here proving that the models that have a physically meaningless projection flat spot between 2000 and 2010 still produce a physically meaningless warming story.
My comment there is applicable here as well. It’s all just-so much ado stories conveying nothing.
Models agree with observations regarding likelihood and pattern of events
====
Who’s models?
I see that even hypothetical major volcanoes are now explaining the pause. If we had a Krakatoa, there would be a long period without warning. So the models are all good.
I read the other day that the U.S. alone spent $79bn cumulatively on AGW research. And got nothing – literally nothing back for that money. The same stories that were plausible in 1988 regurgitated in the face of overwhelming disproof.
Aren’t modeled volcanoes more powerful than real ones?
Yes, definitely. In the same way that in Flight of the Conchords, Bret’s imaginary wife is one of the most beautiful wives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmLHOGT0v4c
rip
@MarkW, depending on what scheme fits the meme,
Not more powerful, but there are just so danged MANY of them at Science Fairs!
Well, at least they admit that there is natural variability in temperature. That’s a start.
It still kills me that they claim to know that humans are warming the planet when they have been forced to admit that they don’t understand what causes natural variability in the Earth’s temperature.
oi oi oi, danger zone, stop that nonsense
good boy, sinecure confirmed!
Ah yes, Volcanic Blip. I’m sure we covered that in Geology 101, but I must have been away sick that day.
/snark
” a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data, results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation”
That would be the natural variation that was completely overwhelmed by CO2’s effect.
Also climate change can only be in one direction and it has ‘stopped’.
If the climate had actually stopped changing I would be getting genuinely scared.
This is real laugh out loud stuff.
‘ may result in a hiatus of over 20 years, a finding supported by model results.’
Ignoring the use of that most definitive of terms ‘may’ (+/- maybe), it’s somewhat revealing that possible observations of what happened are backed up by what (some) of the play-station replays predict/project (prodict?) spit out in their game-over report.
Have we really reached those dizzy heights of hubristic, onanistic fantasy where observations are rubber-stamped as genuine only when the computer ‘says yes’?
It seems that way to me but, I’m sure, that ATTP, from the University of Edinburgh, will be along soon to tell us what we should be thinking!
Ah, good catch, I missed that. If it was consistent with model results, then the models already modeled it. But if they didn’t already model it, then the ‘blips’ cannot be consistent with the very thing the ‘blips’ claim is inconsistent.
But if the notion is that the models are inaccurate to reality, and that the ‘support’ is that the ‘blips’ move the models closer to reality, then all this means is that the models are inconsistent with reality. Not simply as a matter of the ‘science is settled’ but that this also stands as a refutation (given Del Prete’s charts above) of the newest ‘blip erasing’ data product from NASA/NOAA.
None of which gives the least credibility to the idea that the models are accurate in any useful measure.
The cake has been eaten. I wonder what’s for desert… I hope it’s cake!
“results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation.”
I agree that they were the result of natural variation but they were not short term.
The last two pauses were over 30 years . .
The period noted below had no net warming during the period
1880-1930 50 years
1940-1980 40 years
The current pause may run well into 1930/1940
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
Correction on my last post, The last sentence should read .
The current pause may run well into 2030/2040
Or it my precede a cooling trend that runs well into any date one might care to speculate on.
Only by admitting that such guess work is just that is it excusable to make such statements, IMO.
To imply that one somehow knows what will happen next is hubris.
To assert that such speculations and “analysis” is some sort of science is a not-funny-anymore joke.
Weasel words from Hell!!
Eating apple pie is consistent with heroin addiction and murder. The vast majority of 20th century American heroin addicts and murderers had, at some time, consumed apple pie.
They forgot to toss in an ‘unprecedented’ as well.
Bingo.
The temperature record since 1950 is entirely consistent with natural processes with no contribution from CO2 at all. No part of the record is unprecidented.
“Determining the likelihood of pauses and surges in global warming”
any “surges”??
What hiatus? I thought they just proved that there was no hiatus, the heat is hiding in ship board water intakes.
Can’t these guys get their stories straight?
“Can’t these guys get their stories straight?”
Probably due to publication lag? The Hiatus Reasons pipeline was still actively churning, when the What Hiatus? paper was pulled out of the
hatorifice.Exactly. What were these people supposed to do after wasting all that time and money…just throw it in the trash heap where it belongs?
Hell, if “climate scientists” were wont to do such things, where would that leave us?
And how to apply for that next grant if one does not get published results fro the last one?
(I live right next to a major science University, saw a guy at a stop light holding a cardboard sign that said this)
climate scientist …
will remove
or explain hiatus
for food
+1.0001
Now that is funny. On a sadder note, there was a similar sigh held by a man, and it said “Ned money for alcohol research”.
So does this mean they don’t accept Tom Karl’s NOAA temperature reconstructions? After all, according to NOAA there is no pause.
Quite frankly, the reconstructions and repeated data torture of the warmistas to try to extract AGW out of some combination of altered data and computer-generated hallucinations is becoming tedious. I have to admit that over the past year or so I’ve begun to find the entire topic utterly boring.
It is quite tedious, and tiresome.
It would be boring, were it not for the very real money being spent, prices being raised, policies being implemented, and scientific credibility being squandered.
But, I thought the hiatus had been erased! I’m befuddled!
Why do these eggheads focus on one component and try to explain the whole machine?
Have they considered that volcanic activity might be linked to solar or magnetic forcing?
The narrative is breaking down.
“Warming slow-down not the end of climate change…”
They can have their cake and eat it too. They said “not the end of climate change”. Who can argue with that?
They don’t know for sure what is under all that fancy topping, though. It could be frozen cake.
They are a little bit trapped by their own deceit. The phrase ‘climate change’ was deliberately inflicted upon the populace as disinformation, and now it comes back to haunt.
=======================
“Scientists from the University of Edinburgh analysed real-world historic climate records from 1782 to 2000, comparing them with computerised climate models for the same timescale.”
What is a “climate record?” Must be really, really good, cause they’re real-world and historic, too.
People like this should be required to provide their definition of “climate change” before they use it, as it seems to have no real meaning.
Heh, layering on ‘real world’ and ‘historic’ to ‘climate records’ sounds most like an attempt to convince themselves. Who, really, do they think they are fooling?
==============
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a little bit of a tell. Dwelling, as they do, in computer simulations and manipulated temperature series, perhaps ‘climate records’ does need the further descriptive of ‘real world’ and ‘historic’ to help distinguish these records from the ones they’re most familiar with.
Well down the road to madness, these folks.
==================
It’s the “comparing them with computerised climate models” that’s the killer. As if the models have any pretence of reality!
Which, by way of blaming warming on ‘man’ and cooling on natural processes, is a splendid definition of the logical fallacy: “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
Ever notice how the alarmists are careful to use the meaningless phrase “Climate change” in their titles and abstracts, but when their real passion (not science or understanding, of observations, etc. but passion for money and power) comes out it is global warming?
Everything is natural variation, except the short warming trend between the late 1970’s and late 1990’s.
That was the start of a long term upward trend towards catastrophe.
The reduction in Arctic ice between 1980 or so and 2012 is proof of an inexorable decline which will culminate in the death of every polar bear and the drowning of every coastal city and island on the planet.
The increase in Antarctic ice during this period is meaningless noise and proof of nothing, as is that snap back in Arctic ice since 2012, as well as all of the previous fluctuations in Arctic ice extend and thickness tht has been documented over the past hundred and fifty years or more.
That is what one has to believe in order to accept CAGW.
I honestly cannot imagine how these people can keep a straight face while expounding on their ridiculous meme.
It is beyond belief.
https://youtu.be/w-6deLaI6P4?list=PLwqY_qei3V61zTWSEsW9CQN41VXJo3rt_
Just today the scramble got more fun because , by measurement, the folks studying arctic Ice extent with the satellites from the European Space Agency found it to be “surprisingly” increasing for the last four years
Volume is the tell, as I’ve been saying. Now, if I could only remember why I was so sure that volume would be a leading indicator of recovery.
===================
It would be interesting if someone could determine the cause(s) of ice ages, volcanoes sure didn’t do it. It might help them determine the cause of ‘the pause’. It might also help them determine how much affect, if any, Man really has on the climate. If someone could do that, it might lend some credibility to what we now call climate science.
Imagine if the billions spent were used to study real things, or solve actual problems.
Unfortunately, imagining it is all we can do.
Agree, what a waste of human resources and $$$ or pounds when the government tricks educated people to work on global warming, rewarding only those who are devious enough to make up cr!@ur momisugly in order to get more funding. We should be spending our limited resources on viable step out energies or paying down the debt. The US government is $20 + billion dollars every year for climate change and this is a typical product of that expenditure?
Originally they told us that natural variations were too weak to cause warming, now this epistle claims warming is overcome by natural events.
Any idiot that still links significant warming to CO 2 in the atmosphere ignores the total lack of 18 year linkage in the data.
Heh, for plausible worst case scenario, a la Judy’s latest post, I nominate the horrendous waste of money lost to catastrophism.
With lost opportunity costs compounding, we have already diminished the lives of our descendants. And wait ’til economic historians of the future lay the blame for present economic doldrums on the socio-political mania of catastrophism.
Not the least bit unlikely.
====================
“A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending…”
Uh, no….it’s a sign that climate change is continuing. Duh!
+1 Good comment.
So I’ve seen people on the web suggesting that smoke from fires is landing ash on the ice causing more melting. That smoke (like from volcanoes) will not lead to cooling I have never read