From the “well maybe there was a hiatus after all” walkback department. Even Mann is on board with this paper.
By MICHAEL BASTASCH AND DR. RYAN MAUE
More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.
“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the abstract of Santer’s paper, which was published Monday.
“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
The paper caught some prominent critics of global climate models by surprise. Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. tweeted “WOW!” after he read the abstract, which concedes “model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed” for most of the early 21st Century.
It’s more than a little shocking.
Santer recently co-authored a separate paper that purported to debunk statements EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made that global warming had “leveled off.” But Santer’s paper only evaluated a selectively-edited and out-of-context portion of Pruitt’s statement by removing the term “hiatus.”
Moreover, climate scientists mocked Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for talking about the global warming “hiatus” during a 2015 congressional hearing. Instead, activist scientists worked hard to airbrush the global warming slowdown from data records and advance media claim that it was a “myth.”
Santer and Carl Mears, who operate the Remote Sensing System satellite temperature dataset, authored a lengthy blog post in 2016 critical of Cruz’s contention there was an 18-year “hiatus” in warming that climate models didn’t predict.
They argued “examining one individual 18-year period is poor statistical practice, and of limited usefulness” when evaluating global warming.
“Don’t cherry-pick; look at all the evidence, not just the carefully selected evidence that supports a particular point of view,” Santers and Mears concluded.
Cruz’s hearing, of course, was the same year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “pause-busting” study. The study by lead author Tom Karl purported to eliminate the “hiatus” from the global surface temperature record by adjusting ocean data upwards to correct for “biases” in the data.
Democrats and environmentalists praised Karl’s work, which came out before the Obama administration unveiled its carbon dioxide regulations for power plants. Karl’s study also came out months before U.N. delegates hashed out the Paris agreement on climate change.
Karl’s study was “verified” in 2016 in a paper led by University of California-Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, but even then there were lingering doubts among climate scientists.
Then, in early 2016, mainstream scientists admitted the climate model trends did not match observations — a coup for scientists like Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger who have been pointing out flaws in model predictions for years.
John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, has testified before Congress on the failure of models to predict recent global warming.
Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than satellites and weather balloons have observed.
Now, he and Santer seem to be on the same page — the global warming “hiatus” is real and the models didn’t see it coming.
Santer’s paper argues the “hiatus” or “slowdown” in warming “has provided the scientific community with a valuable opportunity to advance understanding” of the climate system and how to model it.
What’s interesting, though, is Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.”
In other words, the “uncertainty monster” is still a problem.
Reprinted via CC license from the Daily Caller News Foundation
The paper:
Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins,
Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou
Abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html
Ryan Maue this morning on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/877173782858924033
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
They refuse to admit or believe that the models could be wrong so they blame the” external forcings” input. A tweak here an adjustment there and everything is fine.
Tamino has tortured the data over and over to prove there was no hiatus which means the peer-reviewed science and the IPCC were wrong. More proof that we can’t trust the science!
Well this is a red-faced red-letter day.
Now, watch as the pleas for more and more money to research ‘the problem’ flood the funding pot managers.
It makes the outrageous replies to Sen Cruz provided by the president of the Sierra Club all the more glaring and ridiculous. When pointedly and repeatedly asked if he (the prez) would accept the science showing there had been no significant warming for the past 18 years, the reply was waffle, appeals to authority and never a hint of a ‘yes’. He said that those who don’t agree with ‘the consensus’ were in the pay of the oil companies.
The way to control both of these things, the modelers’ claims and the stonewalling of actual data, is to only fund the best 25% of predictive sciences. If I was generous I would accept 50% as the dropoff mark. Obviously the Sierra Club disqualifies itself by refusing to accept actual measurements in favour of putative claimed agreement by a shadowy, unnamed, untraceable group of ‘scientists’.
The models could run as they wish, but the least accurate half would receive no more funding for a year. Give them a year to prove they should be let back into the mainstream. If they fail again by being in the least accurate half, out for good.
There is no reason to fund manifest, serial failure. The Model outputs of the Farmer’s Almanac would be in the top 10% for years, I reckon.
The President of the Sierra Club was an embarrassment to anybody who believes in AGW. He didn’t even know what the Pause referred to. I believe he is no longer the President of the Sierra Club.
Yes, I saw him at the congressional hearings, he was a big embarrassment to the cause.
Could not answer questions at all.
After the climate scam is over, some of these scientists may be successful hedge fund managers.
Some of you came close but still have not quite gotten what this paper is all about. It is a form of CYA and hedging that people go through when they realize they have overplayed their hand in public pronouncements. The real reason for the paper is nothing more than increased Government funding. You see, AGW will still need to be studied further in order to determine the risk factors of continuing to drop additional Co2, Methane and other trace gases in the atmpsphere (not to mention the oceans), but the real payoff will be in the addtional funding required by Universities, Computer Modellers, and Scientific Institutes to determine what was wrong in the models that caused them to overreact. Don’t you see the brillance of this “admission” that maybe they overhyped things just a tad? Now they can seek additional funding to improve their models in order to be more correct,…. next time. Brilliant brilliant ploy by the AGW crowd and you all fell for it.:-)
You know, it would be fine to give them more funding if they went away and did science instead of trying to control the Western world’s industrial policy.
Joel, you know that in an earlier generation, these guys would be lucky to be highschool science teachers. No more cash!
You hit the nail on the head there Michael, they admit as much in the paper:
‘In conclusion, the temporary `slowdown’ in warming in the
early twenty-first century has provided the scientific community
with a valuable opportunity to advance understanding of internal
variability and external forcing, and to develop improved climate
observations, forcing estimates, and model simulations. Further
work is necessary to reliably quantify the relative magnitudes
of the internally generated and externally forced components of
temperature change. It is also of interest to explore whether surface
temperature yields results consistent with those obtained here for
tropospheric temperature.’
Correcto.
BTW check Curry’s blog tomorrow on the upcoming National Assessment
Full copy of paper available at: https://sci-hub.io/10.1038/ngeo2973
Thanks Taphonomic.
Always read the full papers in this climate science area and then get the actual data.
Abstracts and news releases are useless.
In this case, however, the paper is also as much garbage as the abstract and the news releases.
The only conclusion contained in it worth anything is that the lower troposphere TMT provides a good check on whether the recent surface temperature “adjustments” are valid or not. There is no conclusion per se but the indication is that the TMT layer did not exhibit the changes that the Karl 2015 adjustments were supposed to correct for. It was in fact, a non-legitimate adjustment.
The rest of it refers back and forth between the Supplemental Figures and the paper and just turns into a typical clusterF Mannian-math out-of-world experience. The only other conclusion is that the TMT does not show the warming predicted (but you have to have had previous out-of-world experiences with climate science papers to read that into it.)
“settled science” morphs into “new settled science”
It would not be surprising to find more scientists recognising that if the science is settled the logical conclusion is that they should be out of a job. In Australia a couple of years ago there was uproar when the minister responsible for funding the CSIRO suggested a huge number of job cuts in that institution because the settled science meant there was less need to spend funds on climate science research. The government backed down under pressure from the left and the cuts were substantially watered down but the logical conclusion remains. Settled science is a job killer for thousands of climate scientists.
The next logical conclusion ( which fortunately President Trump has made) is that if it is now a consensus that there is no consensus then there is great risk ( politically and financially) to implementing economically damaging policies based on such uncertainty.
What the paper did not do was explain the discrepancy. Easy. 6-7 orders of computational intractability (see guest post on models for details) means key processes like convection (Tstorms) have to be parameterized. The CMIP5 ‘experimental design’ required tuning these parameters from YE2005 back to 1975 to produce the best mandatory 3 decade hindcast. That brings in the attribution problem. The temperature increase from ~1920-1945 is essentially indistguishable from 1975-2000, the tuning period. Yet AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 was clear that the earlier warming period was mostly natural and not AGW; not enough change in CO2 to be causal. Natural variation did not magically stop in 1975. Collossal logic fail, and now Santer and Mann need to own it.
Clay C, many of your subcomments reveal real lack of knowledge. Gasses are compressible by definition. That is in all climate atmospheric models I have studied in detail– stuff like embedded lapse rates. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas–yes, so it WARMS our planet from ~-18C to ~+15C. Cooling!?! Your fire/rock analogy is utterly inapt. Please learn the basics of GHG physics, and stop giving the rest of us skeptics a bad name by association.
@Clay C
Great comment Clay. Someday, the fools will realize that the Atmospheric Effect (or GHE if we must) is not a radiative GHE. Till then, people who don’t understand thermodynamics will scoff. Ah, but someday school boys will laugh at them.
“contributing to massive cooling after it’s helped stop 20% available firelight of the sun reaching our planet”
Solar near infrared absorption by atmospheric water vapour is NOT albedo. It’s heating the atmosphere, keeping the surface warmer at night and at high latitudes.
I suspect we may have gotten got a sort of prelude here, on Anthony’s “I need help” post, by someone calling himself ‘Frank’, who seemed very well informed about the “official” maths/models etc. . . who ended his (first) comment with;
“Finally, the planet warmed 0.5 K during two recent El Nino’s due to fluctuations in heat exchange between the surface and the deep ocean. (El Nino’s are unforced or internal variability, they are caused redistribution of heat within the planet, not “forced” by changes in radiation entering or exiting the planet.) So, there is no point in trying to draw conclusions about the existence of an enhanced GHE or estimate climate sensitivity from short-term observations such as the “Pause” – which ended dramatically in 2014. Nevertheless, many do.”
His comment(s) seemed a bit odd to me, especially under the circumstances, and I refrained from engaging on the (to me) somewhat nonsensical notion that the period of greatest human CO2 emissions resulting in a (tacitly admitted it seemed) flat-lining of temps being so casually brushed aside. So when I saw this current post I checked the (rather long) authors of the subject paper list, and sure enough there’s a ‘Frank’ on it . .
The probability of the name “Frank” being absent from a author list of the given length is low (between zero and about 9%). 😉
(Zero ; )
Strange we see none commenting here ; )
Frank Wentz founded RSS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wentz
Santer et. al. write: “The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)”
I’d translate this to mean, in simple language, the models flatly overestimate the effects of hypothetical climate drivers, in this example, carbon dioxide. I believe what’s being said here is that observed natural variability is incapable of explaining the “pause”, and that in fact, the models just grossly overestimate the effects of carbon dioxide.
Or did I miss something? Since I was recently banned from commenting on this subject by a popular mass media outlet, it could be?
Yes you did miss something, the last sentence of the article”
“Although scientific discussion about the causes of
short-term differences between modelled and observed warming
rates is likely to continue, this discussion does not cast doubt on
the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.”
You see, the modeling can miss a short-term prediction, but never a long-term prediction.
TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP…However, OCCAM still needs new blades. They state that although natural variability compromised the upslope on 21st Century temps, that this is because models didn’t allow for changes in 2000 forcing, but Santer states natural variation had nothing to do with the 80s-90s warming!!! This is ‘Sauve qui peut’ manipulation, not science! So, they are only half there. They know the other half would kill the whole show.
Anyway, Cruz should reconvene the Senate hearing and say that that consensus science turned out not to be correct, after all. Indeed, perjury should be considered. I think Trump and Pruitt should now go gangbusters and start looking at malfeasance of at least 50 main culprits. It should include restitution of cash obtained under false pretenses. Karl should have his pension cut.
These ‘carnival barkers’ should be offered a modest retirement package and excluded from raising research funds. Steyn’s lawyers will be ecstatic.
Can someone explain why Dr. Mann is on this paper. I thought he was a tree ring guy. Is this just a gimme?
Nope. It is evidence of those on the Titanic rallying around a possible lifeboat, in their minds. Warmunists all, recognizing obviously failed models. So send more money so we can fix them…. despite the previously settled science.
The more papers a “scientist” signs, the more papers he can claim he wrote.
That impresses people.
Example: Announcer says:
“Mr. Mann, author of 2,345 scientific papers, is tonight’s first climate change speaker”.
Never mind that he only signed 2,329 of them, and never even read them.
He’ll probably sue me now,
BBC news is saying aircraft grounded at Phoenix today because of 48 degree temperatures which means they can’t fly and the usual crap predictions of more heatwaves, doom by the end of the century etc etc etc. No mention of any pause.
I did hear that on Limbaugh today, and it was only one model of commuter plane, a Bombardier stretch, while all other jets were still flying as normal.
Always rely on Limbaugh as confirmed here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=phoenix+airport+cancellations&oq=phoenix+airport+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.18880j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The way back from the abyss for these climate scientists (not) and scientific institutions (not any more) is to acknowledge what they have heretofore denied; the effect of TSI variations. UV is now known to vary as much as 10% versus 1% for the Visible and IR spectrums. The guilty parties will plead ignorance in the face of new knowledge and go on to fabricate new creeds to accomplish their ends.
At the higher energy ranges of UV, which make and break ozone, variation is even more than that.
This could be the beginning of the end for AGW. “Scientists” are changing sides, before its too late, as they observe that their lies are finding them out.
However UN initiatives Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 – ICLEI and the Rockefeller’s “Sustainability” project creep on.
I personally believe that nowadays – if not always- the United Nations is a corrupt power seeking bureaucracy with a dangerous agenda of its own and needs to go.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Don’t forget DICED as well.
Maybe a few of the biggest scary global warming promoters don’t want to show their grand kids they participated in one of the biggest science fiction whoppers in history or they just feel there is more room to be scientifically objective , which after all is what science is about .
I give them credit for at least being less strident . The field is new and far from settled .
“Santer’s paper argues the “hiatus” or “slowdown” in warming “has provided the scientific community with a valuable opportunity to advance understanding” of the climate system and how to model it.” The problem is all these scientists assume that human activity is a major contributor to global warming so their models “attempt” to factor that in. But if the human affect is marginal or non-existent, they will always be missing real world actually because their models are including factors, aka CO2, that do not have an big enough impact to be included. The people looking at the solar activity are on the right track. And there is nothing we humans can do to change that.
Was there also a hiatus in CO2 rising?
No.
I’m always curious about how alarmists justify statements like, “…one individual 18-year period is poor statistical practice, and of limited usefulness” when evaluating global warming” when their whole theory is based on the one 18 year period of warming from 1980-1998.
mkuske:
Their theory is based on the warming from the early 1990s to the early 2000s — it looks like a permanent step up to a new range on a chart.
That quick step up accounts for most of the warming after 1975.
You obviously don’t understand modern climate “science”.
The modern :”scientist” looks for the decade with the most warming, and extrapolates it 100 years into the future.
When asked how they “know” the future climate, they say:
we are government scientists,
are you?
we have advanced science degrees,
do you?
we have super computers,
do you?
and we see runaway global warming coming,
Why?
Because we say so, that’s why.
Careful Mr. Clay C, Ristvan is a trained lawyer, he did not make it his life’s work. He thinks he knows science, but it’s clear you’ve seen through his charade.
Ristvan has over a dozen patents and held a top technical / managerial position at Motorola. I believe he’s also published in the scientific literature. That’s off the top of my head.
Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed GMST has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Box TS.3, Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one third to one half of the trend over 1951–2012. For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04°C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11°C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in NH winter. Even with this ‘hiatus’ in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST.
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it (IPCC don’t know. TS.6) and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. (They aren’t.) {2.4.3, 9.4.1; Box 9.2; Table 2.7}
Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combina¬tion of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}
Box 9.3 | Understanding Model Performance
This Box provides a synthesis of findings on understanding model performance based on the model evaluations discussed in this chapter.
Uncertainty in Process Representation
Some model errors can be traced to uncertainty in representation of processes (parameterizations). Some of these are long-standing issues in climate modelling, reflecting our limited, though gradually increasing, understanding of very complex processes and the inherent challenges in mathematically representing them. For the atmosphere, cloud processes, including convection and its interaction with boundary layer and larger-scale circulation, remain major sources of uncertainty (Section 9.4.1). These in turn cause errors or uncertainties in radiation which propagate through the coupled climate system. Distribution of aerosols is also a source of uncertainty arising from modelled microphysical processes and transport (Sections 9.4.1 and 9.4.6). Ocean models are subject to uncertainty in parameterizations of vertical and horizontal mixing and convection (Sections 9.4.2, 9.5.2 and 9.5.3), and ocean errors in turn affect the atmosphere through resulting SST biases. Simulation of sea ice is also affected by errors in both the atmosphere and the ocean as well as the parameterization of sea ice itself (Section 9.4.3). With respect to biogeochemical components in Earth System Models (ESMs), parameterizations of nitrogen limitation and forest fires are thought to be important for simulating the carbon cycle, but very few ESMs incorporate these so far (Sections 9.4.4 and 9.4.5).
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast the following Catalyst program on 16 October, 2014, ” Global Warming Pause”-
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4107264.htm
The cast of interviewees included two of the authors of the latest Santer paper, England and Meehl as well as Kevin Trenbath opposed to Judith Curry and Garth Paltridge among others.
Given the notorious global warming stance of the ABC,the not surprising conclusion of the program was,” all things considered, there has been no global warming pause.”
The prospects of any retraction correction or clarification or indeed any acknowledgement of Santer et al 2017 are nil.
“model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed”
The word you are looking you nuff muffs is “cooler”
Nope. The model projections have proved to be warmer than what’s actually happened (“observed”).
Dellers has weighed in too (he may have heard it first here)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/20/delingpole-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real-admits-climategate-scientist/
Abstract:
The models were wrong so we’ll need more grants to fix the deficiencies.