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.
GISS must be getting very nervous that it will be axed in the FY2019 budget!
And Gavin is looking over his shoulder for ICE. Gavin is an illegal alien from Australia!
Ha ha
I think it’s more likely he knows he can’t keep lowering the past any further to keep the hustle going, couple that with a declining GMST in the next few years, and now this “Hail Mary to 2030.”
IPCC AR6 planners with their CMIP6 have already begun using adjusted downward solar TSI’s in order to a shift the blame away from their failed CO2 hypothesis and onto a weaker than expected solar input.
“SATIRE model. ”
That is so funny..
Is it April 1st ?
We already have the “travesty”, now the satire
We know the whole thing is a sham, but expect to see the SCORN model soon !!
SATIRE, as funny as the MAGICC model that predicts the ” temperature reduction” that would occur with a CO2 reduction.
Lomborg used it to show the Paris accord would lead to a <0.05C temperature reduction.
“Gavin is an illegal alien from Australia”
NO, Gavin is from the UK, send him back there..
WE DO NOT WANT HIM in Australia.
Terribly sorry old chap, but we don’t accept the return of any faulty goods…caveat emptor.
( the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before purchase )
I didn’t pay for him! Take him away!
Scammers never give up. Cover all bases and you will never be wrong.
More moving goal posts…
… even more precious because NASA apparently soooooooo knows what GMST was in 1880.
and knows it to within a tenth of a degree C.
No warming for 10 years no problem .
Do a Hansen… shut all the air conditioning off in government buildings
quote NOAA climate fudge, show the latest The Inconvenient Squeal and wait for the cash to roll in .
It worked once
Re: it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression// of a ‘global warming hiatus’.
Impression? Nature foiling the “hide the decline” gang by “hiding the the increase?” with negative feedback?
Armageddon is just around the corner, but we don’t rule out the possibility that the corner is receding in the distance faster than Armageddon approaches. Either way it’s out fault. Repent now all ye sinners.
The answer to the reason for the projected 10 year pause in the decline is obvious – they expect Trump to be in power for two full terms… and the extra two years are to give them a little time after that to get back to adjusting the temperature records.
“No warming for 10 years ”
Will look hilarious against the models. !
What’s the red line?
If global warming/climate change fails to produce any actual warming/change, is it still dangerous?
Only the climate change AGENDA.
It certainly is one of the most dangerous things facing modern civilisation.
If the actual temperature does not rise, does that mean all the scary weather will stay away?
Bravo! I applaud Mr Hanson’s persistence to set the record straight. As a simple but interested Geography major from the 1970s, however, I do have some recall and perspective of the winding path of knowledge that got us to this point in time, and I believe it should be obvious, obvious, that scientific methods or data can’t be bent over time to fit one’s outdated hypothesis. He should come clean and say that his original hypothesis was proved wrong and put forth a new one. I am certain that whatever that is, it will be wrong also.
You cannot clean a turd.
But you can roll it in glitter
Looks like there’s no stopping it.
https://junkscience.com/2018/01/claim-sandwiches-cause-global-warming/
Warmists don’t have a clue what future climate will be and are trying to cover all bases. People are catching on to their wishy washy prognostications more than they realize.
..10 More Years of Global Warming Pause (Maybe)….
Hansen is 76. That statement will keep him clear of embarrassment until he is 86. If I were him I would have played it safe and gone for 14 years, taking him up to 90….
Comments on:
Global Temperature in 2017
18 January 2018
By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ken Lo, Avi Persin
[Excerpt]
“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’.”
Allan’s comments:
Stop the Presses! These are the very same people who have been telling us for decades that “the science is settled” and that natural variability and solar variability were INsignificant and increasing atmospheric CO2 was the primary, dominant and essentially the ONLY important driver of global temperature. Therefore, they said that global warming would be clearly obvious by now and it would be dangerous. AND NONE OF THIS HAS HAPPENED!!!
They have also vilified us as “deniers”, encouraged their acolytes to threaten and harass us, launched frivolous lawsuits against us, attacked academics who did not share their overheated views and got some of them fired, and generally acted like crazed sociopaths in their fervor to “fight catastrophic global warming” that did not and does not exist.
In contrast, I published an article in the September 1, 2002 Calgary Herald that stated:
[excerpt]
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
So now the sociopaths are saying essentially the same thing that I published in 2002!
How are we supposed to deal with this? Should we be gracious, and say “all is forgiven?”
– After tens of trillions of scarce global resources have been squandered on science fiction?
– After entire careers have been built on deliberate falsehoods and skullduggery?
– After tens of millions of people have suffered and died due to lack of cheap, abundant, reliable energy?
I say NO – you warmist thugs shall remain UNforgiven, and you will carry your crimes beyond the grave.
I’m feeling particularly benevolent tonight – tomorrow I may tell you how I really feel!
Regards, Allan
Below is an excerpt from my 2002 Calgary Herald article. “Global cooling starting circa 2020 to 2030” is my only remaining prediction from 2002. I had hoped to be wrong about this cooling. Humanity and the environment suffer in a cooling world.
Our eight other predictions published in 2002 have all materialized in those countries that fully embraced global warming alarmist falsehoods. In contrast, NONE of the global warming (aka “climate change”) alarmists’ scary predictions of catastrophic global warming and wilder weather have materialized.
As a Professional Engineer, I do not lightly publish my opinions. We knew all this more than 16 years ago, and published it with confidence.
Regards to all, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/15/a-new-lower-estimate-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/comment-page-1/#comment-2215871
[excerpt}
Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels
Allan M.R. MacRae
Calgary Herald
September 1, 2002
[excerpt]
The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.
Temperatures are now recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred from about 1300 to 1900, when the world was significantly cooler. Cold temperatures are known to have caused great misery — crop failures and starvation were common.
Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.
Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.
______________
So even WITH Karlization they can’t get the temperature to go up anymore?
AND they’re admitting that natural variation is big enough to swamp CO2 forcing?
“the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high”. It is a historical record. It cannot change (except by more NASA data fiddling).
Ture in 2028 you can bet they will find a need to ‘adjust’ it downward, if the money is still flowing in their direction.
What’ll they say if the next ten years give the appearance of a little ice age?
The headline states:
But the paper states:
They are not predicting the continuation of a ‘pause’, as the headline of the above article suggests (‘…10 *more* years…’). They are suggesting that it is plausible, for the reasons given, that over the *next* 10 years global temperatures may not continue the pronounced warming trend that has been observed in all global temperature data sets, including satellite TLT (and yes, UAH), over the previous 10 years.
This would not be the continuation of a ‘pause’; rather it would be a whole new ‘pause’ of 10 years duration. It the past 10 years of confirmed rapid warming isn’t indicative of a long term warming trend, then the next 10 years of (possible) zero trend can hardly be celebrated as indicative of a long term a ‘pause’, can it?
Even if you’re ‘rapid’ warming claim was right, and that is one mega size IF, how does the lack of warming fit into the settled science claims which made it clear that increasing levels of CO2 , must equal increase temperature s?
Let’s face it , this classic snake oil style , heads you lose tails I win. No science required, and certainly no good science expected.
Because “increasing levels of CO2” (~2ppm/year) do not = increasing temps WITHOUT natural variation being imposed on top of that trend.
Something that is continually ignored here, unless it involves cooling or more correctly now – a “hiatus” as NV can no longer completely cancel the AGW trend.
Minimum 30 years to judge the true trend of that.
knr
Every data set we have, both surface and satellite lower troposphere, shows rapid warming over the past 10 years. Even UAH TLT (v6), the coolest of all the global temperature data sets, saw its fastest 10-year rate of warming on record between 2008 and 2017, 0.450 ±0.433 °C/decade (2σ). http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
DWR54: Did you mean that value of 0.450 +/- 0.433 C? First off, three significant digits is a fraud, and a variance of nearly 100% of the value is statistically insignificant.
Would you like to try again?
“Minimum 30 years to judge the true trend of that.”
33 years of ZERO warming out of 39 of the satellite data.
ONLY warming is during El Nino events.
which are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any human or CO2 increase.
Remove your blindfold Tone !
Unless of course someone is PAYING you not to. !!
“Every data set we have, both surface and satellite lower troposphere, shows rapid warming over the past 10 years.”
It’s not any more rapid than the period from 1910 to 1940.
The only warming in the last 10 years was the recent El Nino.
The fact that you have to include an El Nino in order to create the impression of warming is sufficient to prove that even you know the gig is up.
DWR56,
I’ve been managing an investment fund over the last 10 years. The fund has made a return of 16.374% +/- 15.286%.
I have paid out returns to the investors in the range between 1.088% and 31.660%. Some of the investors got together and then asked me why the huge difference in return payments. I told them not be concerned, I’ve verified the precision to five significant figures.
Do you want to invest in my fund?
Rapid? There is nothing rapid, unless you think slow cooling after El Nino is rapid warming.
When SAT in 2022 turns to be the same or lower than in 2003, there is no way to explain that within the hypothesis that CO₂ is the main driver of climate change.
But they have 10 years to work over the past temperature record.
Sounds to me like we’re dealing with normal variation from the insane number of variables involved. Wait -Wasn’t that said starting years ago by those awful climate deniers?
When oil prices fell while Reagan was President, they cut government funding for energy crap which was budgeted up after OPEC and later 1970s inflation, some energy experts hitchhiked on CO2 and AGW (a theory which was around more than a century) which exploded, DOE, then NASA, later all agencies, USDA designing seeds and climatic hubs to deal with AGW, make your own boat for something to study and make living courtesy of US taxpayers.
Nature does not need to conspire to hide something it never started.
I still don’t understand why NOAA et al use thousands of weather stations to get an average global anomaly, but use ONE CO2 reading from the middle of the Pacific Ocean for global CO2. I have a feeling that if they took daily high and low CO2 readings at those weather stations, the average would be a heck of a lot higher than 401 ppm or whatever it is now. Probably more like 800-1000 ppm, which would totally blow the models out of the water.
Because temperature does change dramatically even over a space as short as a mile or two.
CO2 doesn’t.
Really? You figure that the CO2 concentration over, say, Manhattan or LA, isn’t drastically different away in Yonkers or Santa Barbara?
Do we KNOW this? Were thousands of samples taken worldwide back in 1955, and it was determined that they didn’t vary so much that one sample wasn’t good enough? Where is this study? When was it published?
I understand was it’s assumed to be well-mixed, but is this proven — or assumed?
Measure atmospheric CO2 concentration 2 miles downwind of any active or semi-dormant volcano at any altitude between 10 m and and 1000 m . . . report back what you find.
Do the same for any for any area of active surface geology, such a Yellowstone National Park’s geyser field.
That’s my point. Where is the definitive paper with the evidence showing one measurement is good for the entire Earth?
They know their hypothesis is wrong.
They know their models are overheating.
They know surface average temperature has been going down for 23 months.
They know they are underestimating solar forcing.
When the inevitable happens they want to be able to say: “See? We predicted it. Climate change is still the result of our emissions.”
Anybody with two working neurons and a modicum of skepticism will oppose the hypothesis that CO₂ is a primary driver of climate.
“Anybody with two working neurons…”
We have Nick, Tone, and a few other non-entities, that PROVE your point.
There very obviously aren’t many “climate scientists” (lol) with even two working neurons.
“We have Nick, Tone, and a few other non-entities, that PROVE your point.
There very obviously aren’t many “climate scientists” (lol) with even two working neurons.”
Isn’t it interesting that this denizen, who allegedly possesses “two working neurons” continues to fall back to ad hominem rather than using those ” two working neurons” for something approaching polite scientific discourse on here?
Why is that?
Couldn’t be that the pot calls the kettle black could it? (rhetorical)?
And really it is you who has not “even two working neurons”?
And, just out of curiosity you understand – to what do you attribute your “expertise” such that it far surpasses climate scientists?
This announcement was entirely predictable from Schmidt and Hansen after their paper a short while back saying they needed to adjust forcings in their models to account for lack of warming. They have serious problems matching reality now and they know it. I have no doubt this is CYA and they are going to struggle with keeping the story going.
A further 10 years of “apparent” pause will leave the overall pause at what – twenty five or close to thirty years? Long enough to be “climate” in its own right. And the previous statements about a pause of 15, then 17 years being the limit?
I think Roy spencer probably has the models sussed, with their inability to simulate multi-decadel oscillations. But another 10 years will likely see Gavin Schmidt to a nice comfortable retirement and pension. Buying time. Perhaps a pardon from a future Democrat POTUS?
I think Tommy Wills of Swansea University actually nailed it in the Climategate emails:
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably …”
Indeed.
I vote we volunteer them as test subjects for cryogenic suspension. Poetic justice and an actual contribution to science all rolled into one.
Yes, but with a cryogenic system powered by wind or solar power without grid or battery backup.
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably …”
It has and the AMO, PDO, NAO, AO and ENSO have been promoted for many years.
It is impossible to have a lengthy pause and the recent warming not be significantly influenced by nature.
None of the IPCC models will agree. If they are claiming a pause, they are no longer relying on CO2 as the most significant variable. The rate of change of CO2 will remain unchained over the next 10 years, so how can they blame CO2?
Simple, Objective and Inexpensive Approach to Exposing the CAGW Hoax; Live By The Computer, Die By The Computer
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/simple-objective-and-inexpensive-approach-to-exposing-the-cagw-hoax-live-by-the-computer-die-by-the-computer/