Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Benny Peiser / GWPF – Former NASA GISS Director James Hansen and current director Gavin Schmidt think nature may conspire of the next ten years to produce the impression of an ongoing pause in global warming. Though of course it may not.
Global Temperature in 2017
18 January 2018
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ken Lo, Avi Persin
Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2017 was the second highest in the period of instrumental measurements in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. Relative to average temperature for 1880-1920, which we take as an appropriate estimate of “pre-industrial” temperature, 2017 was +1.17°C (~2.1°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period. The high 2017 temperature, unlike the record 2016 temperature, was obtained without any boost from tropical El Niño warming.
…
Prospects for continued global temperature change are more interesting and important. The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle (Fig. 4). Because of the ocean thermal inertia and decadal irradiance change, the peak warming and cooling effects of solar maximum and minimum are delayed about two years after irradiance extrema. The amplitude of the solar irradiance variation is smaller than the planetary energy imbalance, which has grown to about +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2 over the past several decades due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.5,6 However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.
On the other hand, the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high, well above the trend line (Fig. 1), despite cooler than average temperature in the tropical Pacific Niño 3.4 region (Fig. 5), which usually provides an indication of the tropical Pacific effect on global temperature. Conceivably this continued temperature excursion above the trend line is not a statistical fluke, but rather is associated with climate forcings and/or feedbacks. The growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade. There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate.
Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.
…
Read more: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf
Will temperatures rise or fall over the next decade? Temperatures could rise, stagnate or even fall (if solar factors prove a little stronger than expected) according to Schmidt and Hansen’s each way bet. Though they claim that real global warming, the planetary “energy imbalance”, will still be occurring under the cover of whatever happens to global temperature.
The latest prediction does extend the period in which Hansen and Schmidt’s theories cannot be falsified by temperature observations. Up, down or sideways, this paper covers their butts.
This isn’t the first time Hansen has slipped in a prediction that global temperatures will be forced down, despite CO2 driven warming. The diagram at the top of the page is from a previous Hansen paper J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms, in which Hansen predicted a possible abrupt drop in global temperature in the near future, caused by ice melt shutting down global ocean currents.
Is this paper really what passes for “settled science” these days? If I was a Congressman the question I would be asking, is a “settled science” prediction that temperatures could go up, down or sideways really good value for taxpayer’s money?
Why doesn’t the US Government save some taxpayer’s money, ask Punxsutawney Phil for his climate predictions, instead of continuing to pay NASA GISS for their each way bets? Punxsutawney Phil might get it wrong sometimes, but at least the theory that Punxsutawney Phil makes good predictions is falsifiable – Phil’s predictions can be compared to temperature observations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nothing like using the contrary evidence of your position as evidence for your position…wow.
Those darn cargo planes will be landing any day now!!
Ah, yes, the intergovernmental panel on cargo cults
Gavin Schmidt on the airport concourse loud speaker:
“Attention in the gate area, Flight number 666 is currently delayed. The new ETA for the Flight to Hell is now 2030… Thank you for your patience while we continue to adjust our bamboo headsets for a new ETA to be announced around 2022. And Thank You for flying GISS ScamAir.”
great sculture. from the neck downwards, it really looks like the Fonz. He’s definitely captured his body movements. Shame the artist put the wrong head on it.
Face looks more like Richard Feynmann. LOL
hang on. didn’t we get a paper a few years back (from Santer?) that the climate models show a pause greater than 17 years is highly unlikely?
doesn’t this new paper thus contradict the climate models?
I’m still waiting for climate science to explain the cause of the Little Ice Age and how we can be certain that current warming is simply not a continued recovery from the LIA.
Me too.
So, that null hypothesis is now retired, eh? Are there any others left standing?
No, this is called the bi-null hypothesis method. You know nothing about modern science. Please try to keep up.
In layman’s language the bi-null hypothesis method is called : heads I win, tails you lose.
As I understand it the notion of an El Nino event requires 5 consecutive months, and by all accounts there were 3 months in 2017 that were within the El Nino period, but can’t be called an El Nino event on their own. So the use of the phrase “without any boost” is a fabrication. Is this an accurate read of Hanscmidt’s work?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2000
Obviously, Mark, the temperature got a boost from the el nino, because temps started high from the el nino. As of this point, the southern hemisphere temps are among the coolest that have been since the year 2000. The northern hemisphere is still anomolously high. It should be noted that southern temps are generally more stable than the north. And it should also be noted that northern and southern temps oft join each other at some point. (seeing how southern temps are the more stable of the two, if they do join up again soon it will be the north joining the south) Hard to say what exactly will happen, this el nino being such an unusual event with such a great separation between the two data sets. At any rate, 2018 should shape up to be a very interesting year…
global mean lags about 5 mth behind Nino34 anyway, so any “boost” should be expected to be still affecting the global average through most of 2017.
Their definition, their words, — others may say and do otherwise, and do.
NOAA Climate Prediction Center From the CPC site:
El Niño: characterized by a positive ONI greater than or equal to +0.5ºC.
La Niña: characterized by a negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5ºC.
By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode, these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons.
CPC considers El Niño or La Niña conditions to occur when the monthly Niño3.4 OISST departures meet or exceed +/- 0.5ºC along with consistent atmospheric features. These anomalies must also be forecasted to persist for 3 consecutive months.
This is a bit like Nostradamus saying ‘I have a new and truly incredible prophecy. The world may not end in the next 10 years’.
I encourage everyone to support Nostradamus on Patreon. He has to earn a living.
Hi Eric, I would agree except that we are 20 years into the thirty year heating cooling solar cycle and climate muggins knows full well that we will have another 10 years of cooling…and then back to thirty years of “Global warming” again.
Unless of course…as you all say…we don’t. Because the way the sun is behaving we may very well begin to slip into another mini ice age, or worse, so pump out that CO2 guys, when the ice age resumes, and we are overdue, we will be needing every little bit of CO2 we can get, because at a measly 400PPM we are in big trouble when glaciation resumes.
Oh, I can’t, Bill. I don’t have a car any more. I had to junk it. But I can rent cars when I need to. Will that help?
I’m hyperventilating right now!
(I’ll my best attempt at a Leif impersonation…)
….err No. TSI of the last 20 years looks very much like the TSI of the last 60 years.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
What Joel said, plus this:
Interesting graph Joel. So it appears that the early 20th c. warming was due to solar increase but the recent drop has not had a counter effect, What do you think could preventing temps dropping now?
zazove , what is that Steinhilber solar graph about . I don’t see any evidence of a drop in solar before y2k, so how did they make it peak before 1990. More creative “smoothers” that distort the data. Pick the one which distorts it in a way to support your agenda.
What do you think could be preventing temperatures from dropping now? Temperature adjustments.
Well, temps are dropping now.
Prove me wrong.
It helps if you stop asking what is happening “just now”, as it is something very undefined. Why? Ask GISS, because they tend to fix the anomaly years after.
I’m not sure how much the Sun has affected temps, but I assume it could well be a large portion of the warming in the 20th century. What come to this new paper. I think the paper is much about covering all opportunities so that we can’t bust them for being wrong. Deep in their heart they know they don’t have a strong case on CAGW, but they also know deep in their heart that once CAGW vanishes, their funding and fame vanishes as well.
zazove says
January 24, 2018 at 7:43 pm
What Joel said, plus this:
Creative graphs in Adjustocene zazove, that is.
“What do you think could preventing temps dropping now?”
Yeah, you have to admit that Hockey Stick chart mimics the CO2 rise very closely. The dishonest manipulators of the temperature record did a very good job of modifying the temperature record to make it look like CO2 is the reason for the warming: CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up in concert. A huge scam has been perpetrated on the world because of this temperature manipulation.
TSI of the last 20 years
——————–
from the graph TSI varied 1 part in 1360 over the past 400 years. This does not explain the cooling and warming over the same period. prior to 1950 there was very little human influence on climate, yet the climate most definitely changed. where was the change in forcings?
quite simply climate science has yet to explain the past. up until the 1990’s it was believed that CO2 increased ahead of temperature and this explained climate change. however the ice cores turned this upside down in the 1990’s, showing that temperature drives CO2. climate science theory has not yet caught up.
the theories still cling to the old beliefs because there is no replacement theory for CO2. which means that climate science cannot explain the past let alone predict the future. And this is clearly demonstrated by this latest paper, which predicts climate may or may not change.
“What do you think could preventing temps dropping now?”
system reaction lag time
that’s some awesome conspiratorial ideation there…
+1
That Mother Nature’s a shneaky lady, ain’t she.
Don’t elevate pretentious weathermen to these positions….and you won’t continue to get weather forecasts
When does Schmidt plan to retire? 10 years from now?
9
So- just looking at that- its pretty much a paper to say “Something is going to happen, not sure what yet”…
Damn! Wish I had thought of that when I was going for my PhD!
Well it does look more like a message of hope and encouragement for the climate alarmista.
It could be interpreted as: ‘As long as Trump is in office there will be continued global temperature hiatus’.
And to have faith: ‘Just hold-on my pretties, in ten years the nightmare will be over and we’ll be back to the global warming good ol’ days of the Obama years’.
This is a letter of hope.
Always useful to get your excuses in beforehand.
Exactly. Total and deliberate mush.
I’ve got to the point now where these ‘new studies’ from the CAGW gang are becoming white noise or dogs barking in the far distance.
The only thing interesting about them is watching how the weasels are maneuvering.
P.S. Sorry about that insult to weasels.
Huh? If they say its going to rise it is dishonest alarmism, if they say not sure it is dishonest excuses?
Can’t win. That is like arguing with creationists. If there is no warming in the next ten years will you congratulate them?
I love it when alarmists pretend the world started yesterday.
They are being ridiculed because they are so late to the party. The rest of us have noticed the pause 20 years ago and have been predicting that it will continue.
For that sin, you and your heros have been attacking us for years.
Now they proclaim that there may well be a pause for the next ten years but don’t worry, CO2 is still in control.
Za, don’t look at the people (and what they’re saying) rather look at the models. Ten more years of no warming will put temps well below the range of the models. This will mean an epic fail for those models which are already overperforming. (that’s the test for agw theory)…
Hansen promised warming of δ5K by 2020s in US in 1986 (if nothing is done). Emissions are now much larger than 1986. I congratulate him on becoming less alarmed. I don’t congratulate him on his BS.
If there is no warming in the next ten years, I congratulate me myself for the stable climate we have.
I need a capital Δ.
Don’t we all!
zazove: If there is no warming in the next ten years (one of the three “predictions”), then temp will not be following CO2 and you’ll have to take your chart into the CCC (Climate Change Chiropractor) for some more adjustment. Looks like your chart has been to the CCC a lot since 1930.
Speaking of excuses … I believe I should be able to use this extennnnnnnded pause in Warming as an excuse to STOP paying Jerry Brown’s increased gasoline taxes, and carbon trading taxes, vehicle registration increases … and the ADDED $3.00 bridge fares making it $10.00 to cross the Bay Bridge during heavy commute hours !!! No NEED Jerry!! Give me my $$$ back!!!
The $10 is to keep poor people from using the bridge when rich people may need it. Nothing to do with AGW.
Does the $10 relieve congestion?
If not, it is just supply/demand gouging, like raising gas prices before a predicted hurricane. They don’t care about rich people or poor people; they care about making their jobs easier.
Here’s my tip for always winning on the horses, bit like theirs with the weather.
If you back every horse in the race you’re bound to win.
Simples:
James Bull
JB: I thought the same thing, except they are at the crap table betting every number.
Well, after 10 more years of “Pause”, and when the temperatures have started to trend DOWN, perhaps the Warmies will finally be ready to admit the truth; that we’re going into a “Dalton Minimum” style mini-ice age.
They’ll call it a “Hansen Hiatus”.
Hansen Hiannus?
I don’t think that would happen, and I’d be ready to bet on that, should there be a stock exchange that supported that kind of betting.
that kind of betting
============
they are called mutual funds (and climate models). you open 100 new funds each year and randomly choose stocks. Each year you keep the top 50 funds and close the rest.
Over time you will end up with a few funds that are way ahead of the market year after year. You promote the heck out of these to investors as they clearly show you know how to predict winners. You charge a hefty management fee on these winners and clean up.
In reality, you have no skill at predicting the future. Because you chose stocks randomly, your aggregate position goes up and down in sync with the market. But because of your pruning of losers, it makes the winners look like there is real skill involved in the funds you are promoting.
Climate science fails to recognize that this mutual fund “fraud” is the exact same way that climate models are built. The mutual funds have “strategies” to try and outperform the market, but none of them work long term. They only appear to work because of pruning of the losers hides the fact that the winners got it right simply by accident.
If you accurately report all funds, no fraud, just running your gains and cutting your losses. Better to look at yearly accounts than advertising promo.
ferdberple,
You just passed neatly P-hacking and borderlined Bayesian inference. It is not what the result is, it is also from what pool you drew your lottery tickets. Probabilities are an interesting beast.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t one or both of them previously say there never was “a pause”?
I guess Man’s greatest impact on Nature is in reporting what Nature is doing.
“the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus”
not to mention the impression that none of the authors has a clue about how climate science works.
Hanson’s note is on the cutting edge of climate research. Warming is not a smooth curve but “stair steps”. Two recent papers document this and propose a mechanism for it (a “store and release” of ocean heat).
Understanding how this works might allow more accurate temperature forecasts over 5-10 year time horizons.
Details here: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/01/20/global-warming-in-2017-and-beyond/
Hansen can’t even get a 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart right. Apparently he got it so wrong in 1999, he had to later turn it into a Hockey Stick chart with a completely different temperature profile than the 1999 chart.
This comparison shows how wrong Hansen got it. The black is the original Hansen; the red is what it had to be changed into to “correct” it.:
It does not look like anything controversial except that for the names on it. Big red rags.
I don’t think focus on personalities is helpful.
After 30 years of nothing but personal attacks against anyone who doesn’t accept the global warming dogma, you are now complaining that we aren’t being nice to your heroes.
Your whines would be a lot more convincing if you had spoken up years ago about the sins of your side.
I didn’t complain and I do not belong to any side except the side of open minds. I hope you are also.
I find the Heller graph funny as hell. Why is what? Because it shows how the warming in the 1900’s happened in the 2000’s.
And we know almost all that red-line warming is basically a result of a statistical handling of station records afterwards. There would be almost nothing besides natural variation without these methods. Torture, and the data confesses. But it is of no use complaining. It doesn’t much matter what the anomaly says if there is practically no adverse effects from the warming satellites can confirm.
Open minds already made up is more like it.
Does anyone really believe that the baseline, “average” temperature MEASURED over the period of 1880-1920, as cited in the abstract of the Jan 2018 paper by Hansen et.al., has an accuracy within +/- 0.5 C of the accuracy of “average” temperature measurements being performed today. Before you respond, please consider multiple factors such as improvements in temperature measurement techniques and instruments, increased area-of-Earth measurements and frequency of measurements contributing to the “average”, corrections (or lack of same) for urban heat island effects where/when temperatures were measured, corrections (or lack of same) for various measurement-location altitudes comprising the “average”, etc, etc.
Was the temperature anomaly data for 1880-1920 as shown in the above graph Karl-ized (excuse me, adjusted) in any way, even for the NASA 1999 data? What might one conclude about “global” temperature trending if the graphed data of 1880-1920 was shifted upward by just 0.5 C?
I look at your page Mr Kummer and you are correct – if there is a 10 year hiatus on ocean heat that is 100x more important and then everyone needs to rethink. Stair steps and hiatus in the atmosphere is obviously small variations overlaid the man-made warming. I think the people who ask for a straight line misunderstand.
No misunderstanding that one of the authors of the paper in question predicted that the West Side Highway in Manhatten would be underwater, windows there taped due to high winds, and fresh water in short supply, by this year.
So Hanson and those that take him seriously, what say you now?
Rah,
The reporter, Bob Reiss, later corrected the quote he gave from his interview with James Hansen. Here is the quote from “Stormy weather“ by Suzy Hansen in Salon, 23 October 2001, with 2 corrections from his 2004 book The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather And Our Terrifying Future. The original date didn’t make any sense.
Absolutely. And people who cherry-pick and manipulate in order to draw neat straight lines do what?
Warming is mild, and local (spatial, temporal) variation dwarfs it.
The revised date of 2030 has the advantage of not being past, but that’s about it. There’s a *zero* percent chance that temperature-driven sea level rise will threaten the highway in just twelve more years.
Further, even if there had been dramatic sea level rise acceleration, it was *still* a stupid prediction. The idea that a city with the resources of NYC would tamely sit by and let the rising sea swallow its infrastructure over a 40 year period is daft. Had the future that James Hansen predicted happened– that obviously is NOT going to happen by 2030–NYC would have adapted.
revised date of 2030
——————–
come 2030 there will be another correction to the article, pushing the date further into the future.
after all, sometime in the future, the highway likely will be underwater. it might take a couple of billion years, but to be fair the prediction is likely correct. only the year was wrong.
Sure…
Just like chess players can redo their moves 10 years after the game.
With half of Hansen’s time period to a drowning New York already past; it was very clear that New York was not drowning soon.
Ergo; an extension of time by “reframing” the original storyline. Just like the internet, the original story still stands.
N.B. None of the “revised” Hansen “New York will drown” timelines has demonstrated any veracity.
That first prediction is just as false as the following extended time till flood predictions. i.e. All of Hansen’s sea level predictions are bogus.
Ok fine. Then 2030 is the year when the lowest portion of the West Side Highway will be flooded now ? It is 2018 and he is talking about the impression of 10 year hiatus? That leaves 2 years for several thousand Gt of terrestrial ice to melt to get to the lowest portion of the West Side Highway. 361.8 Gt of terrestrial ice melt equals 1 mm of global SLR correct?
Got to love the delicate handling of fact by Hansen et al in this paper!
What does an “impression” mean here? Either GMST does not increase for some period, or it increases. It’s physical data, not like interpreting signals from your date on the dance floor.
A job for Brad Keyes, obviously.
It is a simple prediction based on the super El Nino of 2015-2016. He knows from the 1998 El Nino that it is unlikely for temperatures to surpass this level for many years. However, he will be wrong. By then the AMO will have flipped and cooling will have begun.
Great line Larry – “It’s physical data, not like interpreting signals from your date on the dance floor.”
Love it.
I want to make sure that I understand this proposal by Mr. Hansen.
This pearl-clutching announcement is in regard to a statistical estimate, not an actual temperature rise, of three-quarters of a degree worldwide, a “rise” which not one of us will be able to feel, sense or detect in any way at all. And it is offered with the 10-year warranty option, too.
However, it overrides Mr. Hansen’s previous statistical guesstimates because it does take into account that the planned/proposed/prophesied warming statistic did not come into effect.
Normally, I would say Mr. Hansen is grasping at straws, that he is trying to stay relevant and trying to keep his job (does he even have one?) but it appears to me that this is more of an ego trip which will result in our being told ‘It is if I say it is!” by Mr. Hansen because our own senses and instruments and other useful observations tell a different story.
I do wish Mr. Hansen would find something else to do besides annoy me. Perhaps he could take up needlepoint. I understand that Rosie Grier, the football player, did needlepoint to relax and focus his mind. It seems to me that Mr. Hansen and Mr. Schmidt need to find a new direction to follow.
Frankly, I don’t believe anything they say. I have read science fiction that was more believable than this nonsense.
I wouldn’t trust that man with knitting needles. He’d knit half a sweater with three sleeves.
And it wouldn’t make you any warmer!
HAHAHAHA OMG John +100
We agree there’s been no global warming for 20 years (except for adjustments).
We now think there’ll be no global warming for another 10 years.
But it’s gonna happen!
But the adjustments will increase!
If 30 years the records will only be paperless.
Your kids and grand-kids won’t know what paper is. They won’t know just how wrong today’s Climate Heroes were.
(And their Notepads and Smartphones will be starving for a recharge. … If the cagwer’s get their way.)
I just love the idea of Nature “conspiring” against former NASA GISS Director James Hansen and current director Gavin Schmidt in their noble task of advancing the fictional Global warming theory. Nature may even go further and produce the strong impression of an actual decrease in World temperatures over the next ten years. I am sure however, that the stalwarts of NASA can draw on their past expertise at NASA to fake up something for us to look at.
So not worry, as we go into the solar minimum next two cycles, they will blame the sun for the reason AGW is not occurring, that or say that policies to limit CO2 worked and that they saved the world from AWG.
Hansen, and the protege Schmidt use the outlandish scare mongering on AGW as an excuse to bloat NASA’s budget for ESD and GISS. When it did not happen as forecasted, then Schmidt started tweaking all the land station measurements with [political] adjustments and made up data where no thermometers exist cooling the past before the satellite record, but the gig is up. Outside the taxpayer funded propaganda, scientific understanding overall accumulates and they know that cannot fool people forever, even with $115 million marketing budget spent there to “educate” the public akin to what North Koreans are told about Kim. A lot of federal agencies used AGW to bloat their budgets, politicians for votes, or afraid to question the same, but for NASA the AGW hype had worked best as excuse for more finding, some at sacrifice of actual space stuff, NASA’s Earth Science Division which hosts GISS extracted $ millions from taxpayers on made-up stuff supported by made-up stuff. If things change and we have global cooling in a decade, GISS will just change tune to study AGC morphed from “climate change” which replaced AGW. The only thing correlated with CO2 is more green plants, and money in NASA’s GISS budget, and Mann made hot air by Schmidt rising above Tom’s Restaurant the corner of W 112th St. and Broadway and Greenbelt, anything else is a spurious correlation at best. But when you have experts and religion basing everything on some forecast which keeps not coming true, who needs the truth?
http://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NASA_Earth_Space_Science-Funding.png
JP, they won’t be able to run (and hide) from AGW theory. They’ve been saying catastrophic warming for thirty years now. If AGW theory collapses completely, it will be deemed the biggest false paradigm since the flat earth. (no way that they’ll be able to walk away from that)…
Neurologist Egas Moniz won the 1949 Nobel Prize in Medicine for inventing the lobotomy which was considered the cutting edge state of art operation to cure mental illness. People forget. Hansen is retired. How my young people remember “scientific” global cooling scare from late 1970s and can say decades later they were wrong on short term forecasts? I agree that AGW is the biggest scientific scam of century, but what about lobotomies? People forget. Flat Earth? – my favorite book is Flatland (1884), and hard to convince people in R2 that there existed R3, facts and non facts appeared as religion.
Prediction – the temperature will go up; or it will go down; or it will stay the same. Got it! All the rest is technobabble.
A few years ago they were assuring us that CO2 was so powerful that it had completely swamped all natural cycles.
They’ve hedged so much, they’ve covered their “buts.”
This appears to be a complete acceptance of Professor’s Akasofu’s 2010 prediction. I do hope they will acknowledge his foresight and apologise for their “denial” of his insight. Imagine where climate science could be now if they had all followed the science instead of the grants.
Might be a “hiatus”? What will they say if the some of the cyclical folks are correct and we get 20 years of cold and temperatures dropping 2 C? “We predicted that too and it is CO2” probably.
Probably not. Gore and Mann played that sort of game with the recent cold snaps and got hammered by their own colleagues. (ain’t gonna happen)…
‘….temperatures dropping 2 C? ‘
Highly unlikely, it would take a lot longer for world temperatures to fall that far, but a drop of 0.5 C over the next two decades is plausible. Similar to the 1950s and 60s.
Considering the 30 or so “best” climate models used by the IPCC as the basis for its predictions to Earth’s inhabitants, quite of few of the various models’ programmers are sure to say “Ooops . . . I put in a plus sign where I should have entered a negative sign.”
If CO2 drives climate… And atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise faster and faster… And CO2 drives the climate by warming it… Um? How exactly is CO2 driving ANYTHING if it could get warmer, or colder, or do absolutely nothing over 10 years?
It could contribute. It could complicate. It could do very little… BUT IT CAN’T BE ***DRIVING*** CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
There. I feel better now. Thank you.
“it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
What a ridiculous statement. There is no such thing as “an impression of a global warming hiatus.” Either there is a hiatus or there is none. Impression is for interpreting artwork. Science uses statistics, Their use of nonsensical language is to coverup their failure to predict past hiatus before 2016 El Nino and inability to predict what will happen in next 10 years. “We don’t know what we’re talking about” would be a more sensible and honest statement.
Let me try to restate what they said in that same paragraph in clearer language. They are saying despite the 0.75 W/m^2 energy imbalance over the past several decades due to greenhouse gases, it is plausible or likely that temperature will stop rising in next 10 years due to solar variabllity. The logical conclusion here is solar variability has a stronger forcing than greenhouse gases. Or an alternative hypothesis is Trenberth’s missing heat went to the deep ocean and we don’t know when it will resurface to cause global warming. Maybe in next 10 years, maybe next decades or next century or few centuries. Therefore, the science is settled – climate is chaotic and inherently unpredictable.
the american people won’t be able to understand this, you see. it takes a climate scientist.
climageddon is baked in – only you can’t see it cuz it’s masked by a vast right wing cooling conspiracy funded by fossil fuel denialiststs. but don’t be fooled! it’s like the catastrophic sea level rise that’s masked by sinking oceans – probably with russian collusion.
They know the 2018 La Nina coupled with a SC24 minimum for the next 3 years is going to lower GMST. The lowering station temps are likely to be so dramatic in the next 3 years (with 60’s-70’s like cold temps across the world) that they cannot hope adjust out GISTEMP with the usual go-to homogenizations and infills.
You got it on the nose, and GISS will not be able to keep faking temperature data deviating from RSS or UAHv6, all they can do is cool the past (pre 1978) with more adjustments. Gig is up. 2018 and 2019 and next two decades will likely be cooler and they know enough to know that. La Nina, solar minimum, and maybe a volcano for a few year dip, meetings at NASA for switch of focus for asteroid scare to keep funding going. I wish Trump would direct cabinet execs to stop all this gov spending on propaganda, Schmidt should go, but would appear like a political thing, and return to science.
Dr. Strangelove
They are referring to a period of 10 years duration during which temperatures either remain static or do not rise much. To some folk, and let’s face it, to some folk right here on this site, that would be more than enough evidence to give the confident “impression” of a hiatus. They would be wrong, of course.
10 years is too short a period over which to gain such an impression. Likewise, ‘warmists’ would be mistaken in gaining the impression that the previous 10 years, 2008-2017 inclusive, are indicative of rapid warming just because they were the fastest warming 10 years in the UAH satellite record.
10 years, added to the previous 20 years.
Let’s face it, no matter how long the “hiatus” you will always find an excuse to proclaim it too short a period to be definitive.
““We don’t know what we’re talking about” would be a more sensible and honest statement.”
Well put. Another good one would be “we’re just guessing”.
Wait – is it the hiatus that did occur or the hiatus that did not occur that is going to continue or not continue for the next 10 years?
Good question, Kb.