By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: The world’s temperature is in the news again, showing that 2017 was another warm year. Now that it is in the record books, let’s look at the more important question — about future warming, if a new pause has begun — and what might be the political implications.
One of the most important datasets of our time.
Another warm year!
The world has been warming for two centuries, since the Little Ice Age ended. “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” {from AR5, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report). See the above graph. So we have had a lot of headlines like this: “For the globe, 2017 was the third warmest year on record and the warmest year without an El Niño present.”
Look at the numbers (from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance interactive graph).
- The total 18 year increase from the 1998 El Niño to the 2016 El Niño was 0.31°C (0.56°F).
- That is 0.18°C (0.32°F) per decade.
- That is faster than the warming of 0.11°C (0.20°F) per decade during 1950 – 1998.
- That is 4x faster than the warming of 0.04°C (0.07°F) per decade from 1880-1950.
We did not get these headlines during the “pause” (aka “hiatus”) from 1999 through 2014. The global surface temperature did not exceed the 1998 high (by more than the ~0.1°F margin of error) until the 2015-2016 El Niño. Scores of papers discussed the pause; scores explored its causes.
Climate activists responded by denying the science and concealing these papers from the public (examples here and here). For good reason. Frequent stories about warming are the core of their messaging. The long pause disrupted that program. They had to rely on scary but false predictions (more & bigger hurricanes after Katrina) and falsely blaming most extreme weather on global warming (e.g., 2017’s hurricanes).
What comes next?
“Mr. President, if that’s what you want there is only one way to get it. That is to …scare the hell out of the country.”
— Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s advice to Truman about starting the Cold War. Truman did so in his famous speech on 12 March 1947. From Put yourself in Marshall’s place
by James Warburg (he helped develop the US WWII propaganda programs).
Unfortunately, motivating America to action is more easily done using fear than reason. Fears ‘R us (it makes us easy to rule). So our news is presented as a series of hysteric fits. That is why we live in the crisis crisis. Hence the misuse of the worst-scenario in the IPCC’s AR5 (RCP8.5), ubiquitously described by activists as the “business as usual” scenario (which it is not; it is unlikely — and becoming more so).
That’s why the pause had such a large political effect, disproportionate to its significance to scientists — it interrupted the flow of scary stories about global temperature records.
What happens if we get another plateau, a step up only one or two tenths of a degree C (0.2 or 0.3°F) higher than the previous plateau? A pause perhaps lasting 10 or 15 years. Can the climate policy campaign continue without new record highs in temperature? A post by James Hanson et al. describes why this is “plausible, if not likely” — “Global Temperature in 2017.” Excerpt…
“The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle. …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’. …Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.”
A new pause might already have begun. To see tentative signs of a new plateau, watch the YoY seasonal temperature changes in temperature. Like the following graph showing the average temperature per year for October to December. The September – December and August – December graphs are similar, but weaker. The passage of time will tell the answer.
What do Activists have without new temperature records? Thirty years of blaming extreme cold and warm, drought and floods, on CO2 has accomplished little (details here). Activists’ favorite tactic of focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
Activists could try science instead. Stop exaggerating the research, stick with reports from the IPCC and major climate agencies, and accurately describe the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. Of course, that is not as scary as their usual tactics.
Why the (possible) stair steps in warming? (updated)
Where did the heat come from in the massive warming during the 2014-2016 El Nino period? A new paper proposes an answer: “Big Jump of Record Warm Global Mean Surface Temperature in 2014-2016 Related to Unusually Large Oceanic Heat Releases” by Jianjun Yin et al. in Geophysical Research Letters (in press).
A recent paper give an explanation of this pattern: “Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales“ by Roger N. Jones and James H. Ricketts in Earth System Dynamics, 8 (1), 2017 — Abstract…
“Interactions between externally forced and internally generated climate variations on decadal timescales is a major determinant of changing climate risk. Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in step-like warming.
“This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.”
This paper points us to another perspective on climate change. Ocean heat content (OHC) is in many ways the best metric of warming. This was controversial when Roger Pielke Sr. first said it in 2003 (despite his eminent record, Skeptical Science called him a “climate misinformer” – for bogus reasons). Some scientists point to changes in the ocean’s heat content as an explanation for the pause.
Graphs of OHC should convert any remaining deniers of global warming (there are some out there). This shows the increasing temperature of the top 700 meters of the oceans, from NOAA’s OHC page. See here for more information about the increase in OHC. It is in a sense the clearest metric of global warming. Why do we not see this graph more often? Probably because it is not scary.
That’s all a sideshow. Here’s the center ring.
Information about past and present warming is important. But for making public policy decisions, we need to know about future warming. What are the odds of severe warming during the 21st century? There is no easy answer, and no consensus of climate scientists about it. So climate activists either ignore the research (e.g., the 4 scenarios described in AR5) or focus on the worst of these (the truly horrific RCP8.5) while ignoring its unlikely assumptions.
So far the weather has sided with the skeptics, with little of the extreme weather activists predicted. No surge of hurricanes after Katrina (despite the predictions). No sign of the methane monster. Northern hemisphere snow extent has risen since in both the Fall and the Winter. There is little evidence that we have passed one of the often declared “tipping points”.
The smart way to bet is on inaction, as both sides continue their food fight while climate scientists make incremental progress (insufficient to affect the public policy debate. America will not prepare for the repeat of past extreme weather, let alone what we can reasonably expect in the future.
There are ways to break this deadlock, but neither climate scientists nor the US government will push for them. So we hope for pleasant weather. Hope is not a plan.
For More Information
For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, and especially these …
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- My proposal: Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- Thomas Kuhn tells us what we need to know about climate science.
- Daniel Davies’ insights about predictions can unlock the climate change debate.
- Karl Popper explains how to open the deadlocked climate policy debate.
- Paul Krugman talks about economics. Climate scientists can learn from his insights.
- Milton Friedman’s advice about restarting the climate policy debate.
- We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Even on the first graph you presented, the 1998 temperature was exceeded by more than 1F in 2014 and, possibly 2010, so your claim that it wasn’t beaten until the latest el Nino is wrong. It’s interesting, though, that even your imagined line drawn from the tip of 1998 shows an upward incline. So no pause. In a later graph, with your lines drawn in (not necessarily statistically sound) show the famed escalator. Temps continue to go up with each “plateau” being higher than the last. So even contrarians find it hard to argue for no warming, any more.
Mike,
(1) “Even on the first graph you presented, the 1998 temperature was exceeded by more than 1F in 2014 and, possibly 2010, so your claim that it wasn’t beaten until the latest el Nino is wrong”
I see what you mean. That’s my sloppy phrasing. I said “The global surface temperature did not exceed the 1998 high” — which is from the NOAA or NASA story about 2017, referring to the daily high. Not the annual average anomalies shown in the graph.
(2) “It’s interesting, though, that even your imagined line”
Close your eyes. The line is still there. It’s not an “imagined line.”
(3) “drawn from the tip of 1998 shows an upward incline.”
It’s just a hand-drawn broad line given as an illustration. To learn about the pause see these two dozen papers describing the pause (aka “hiatus”), with full citations, abstracts, and links:
In the past few years attention shifted to analysis about possible causes of the pause. See these four score papers about this (with full citations, abstracts, links). It’s a sample, not comprehensive. ~18 of these are from 2017, with Jones and Ricketts one of the most recent (they call them “steps”). Lots of theories about this.
Mike,
A follow-up note to your comment.
Thanks for raising this issue. I looked at the data more closely. The yearly high I mentioned is trivia (as with most of us who write press releases for a living, we tend to insert fun distracting trivia).
More important is, as you note, the annual anomalies. The first year with an anomaly (to tenths of a degree, all I trust the data for) above 1998 is 2014 — when the 2014-2016 El Nino period began. So I changed the line you drew attention to read “did not exceed the 1998 high (by more than the ~0.1°F margin of error) until the 2014-2016 period of El Niño conditions.” (i.e., changed on the FM website.)
A much clearer and stronger point!
Well, the 2014-2015 el Nino was a weak one. So is it not significant that 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 were all above both 1997-1998 el Nino years by the margin you think is important (0.1F)? Also, 2010 was more than 0.1F above 1998 (in fact, 0.07C above 1998). That was a moderately strong el Nino year. 2005 and 2009 were also nominally above 1998, though not by the 0.01F margin. Note, though, that any uncertainty works both ways; 1998 may have been slightly cooler and 2005,9,10,14,15,16 and 17 may have been slightly warmer. But, from the NOAA data we can say that, nominally, the exceptional 1998 warmth was beaten within 7 years (during which there were no strong or very strong el Ninos and 2005 was only a weak el Nino year) and then beaten another 6 times up to last year, even though there was only one strong or very strong el Nino, with 2017 being a weak la Nina year.
Mike,
The “store and release” model is a theory described in a peer-reviewed paper. If you wish to give a rebuttal, I suggest you read the paper and reply to what they say.
Time will show if that theory is correct.
Larry, I don’t see that line changed to “did not exceed the 1998 high (by more than the ~0.1°F margin of error) until the 2014-2016 period of El Niño conditions.” However, this would also be wrong, as I pointed out the 2010 also exceeded the 1998 high by more than 0.1F, in the NOAA data that you started the article with.
Here is my take on the future moves for sst and ssta numbers. I stated this in early Sept 2017, “…Further, the oceans ssta numbers will turn predominantly cool by the end of next spring. Within several years after that almost all of the oceans will be showing cooler than average surface temps. All of that despite the continuing increase in global CO2. So that is my prediction.”
From here, …https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/the_un_climate_panel_cannot_be_trusted/#comment-3536232646
Sea level has been marching upward in a slow, straight line for 150+ years according to essentially all long run tide gauges on earth. Why shouldn’t we assume that OHC has done the same?
The only reason to assume it was flat until 1950 then started rising is because that matches the CO2 narrative.
KTM,
(1) “The only reason to assume it was flat until 1950 then started rising ….”
Who assumes that? No climate scientist that I’ve seen.
(2) “Sea level has been marching upward in a slow, straight line for 150+ years…. Why shouldn’t we assume that OHC has done the same?”
No assumptions needed. The evidence for acceleration of GMSL rise is tentative. The rate of ocean heat content warming, like the rate of surface atmospheric warming, is accelerating.
Surface temperature anomalies should never be lumped in with any other data. They should be thrown into the trashcan along with anything that NOAA puts out.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/
. The problem is that the real science is not there for AGW and never will be, so the alarmists have to point to corrupted data to make their case. The basis physics is upside down. please read this paper
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/
Also as another poster has pointed out IT is NOT a food fight. Billions of dollars are at stake here and the whole survival of the scientific method which has been corrupted by the alarmists and their ridiculous computer models and who refuse to admit that the science is not settled; so therefore refuse to debate it., Thousands of climate papers are put out with government funding and are based in part on computer simulations. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh .. Shame on you Mr. Kummer for believing in that stuff.
As recently as 1979-2000 (approximately) sea level rise was decelerating so why should I be more concerned with the current trend than the equally steep one from 1969-1979?
I don’t dispute there is a general warming trend, but its beginning certainly predates significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions so I do dispute we have the tools (so far) to accurately determine what part of the trend is natural and what is manmade, an uncertainty the IPCC grudgingly acknowledges and somewhat speciously tries to estimate given the lack of precision in all climate metrics. Nor have I seen any reasonable projection that future likely temperature increases are significant enough to waste a single dollar trying to mitigate the effects of. The evidence so far would indicate any successful mitigation might actually give us net costs when we would otherwise experience net benefits.
Finally, the newfound enthusiasm for the “yeah, yeah, it’s a step process” as though they knew that all along rather than being confounded by the pause they didn’t predict and couldn’t explain does not inspire confidence in climate science’s maturity or competence. The historical record very clearly shows a series of spikes, plateaus and even a decline or two and yet, others should put much confidence in the guys who finally figured out that might be how things actually work in the real world as opposed to their models?
Climate science has yet to earn the right to be considered anything other than an immature, imprecise and barely more than rudimentary niche of science.
All science evolves as it matures but climate seems particularly resistant to making it easy on science to crack it, a problem greatly exacerbated by the political uses to which it is put and its maddening reluctance to police its own ranks of charlatans like Mann and cranks like Hansen riding their political hobby horses right through sound, sober research.
There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere (400 ppm by volume and 600 ppm by mass) to heat much of anything (never mind the 71% of the earth’s surface covered by water). Plus the fact that the oceans are over 5 miles deep in some places. The oceans contain 22 times more heat than the atmosphere(Plimer 2009). Some other sources give 1000x . The sea surface is heated by solar radiation and infrared energy from clouds and a little bit by greenhouse gases. The % amount of solar in the above equation dwarfs any piddling amount of heat from greenhouse gases. Also as the sea surface temperature heats up enough it then loses heat through evaporation. A new sea surface temperature equilibrium is then reached. The IPCC doesnt like the word equilibrium. If there wasnt many equilibriums in the science of the earths history we wouldnt be here. The winds drive ocean currents and different pressures drives the wind and differing sea surface temperature. What causes the differing pressures in the 1st place? Different temperatures from uneven solar heating caused by different surface compositions. So we are back where we started from. It is a cycle. So how in the hell would one ever be able to accurately model EL NINOs and EL NINAS and the thousands of other wind and temperature oscillations on the earths surface not to mention the formation of clouds is very poorly understood or else we would we able to predict every cloud that ever was created. Climate modelers have deluded themselves.
Depending on whether you use monthly, semi annual or yearly averages you can show either no change little change or significant change in temperatures. Its a mugs game and each side cherry picks the graph scale they want. However look at the following study
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1858
That study says the total increase over 100 years of sea surface temperature with the last 30 years by ARGO robots has been a third of a degree Celsius and for much of that time there was accelerating increases in man made CO2 with no acceleration in warming of the oceans; just a slight overall increase of .33 degrees C. If you are upset over a third of a degree temperature change in the ocean in a century then i suggest you move to another planet.
Where is the acceleration in this long run tide gauge from San Francisco?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/50yr.htm;jsessionid=83C0FDF3631402D4566DA5472DF8672D?stnid=9414290
The trend looks straight as an arrow to me, and if you want to squint at the wiggles the trend was higher between ~1945 and ~1975 than it has been more recently.
Look at other long-run tide gauges and you’ll see a very similar story. Why should they be ignored in favor of much shorter and less suitable metrics?
Anomalies are bullshit science. They always need a base period and that average base period is not the historical average for all time. Collecting temperature data that needs anomalies to work with is not science. Has anybody actually looked at the Gator69 youtube video in this post. It for once and for all time discredits all climate modelers and the IPCC. There is little to say after viewing the professors presentation. Again here is the link
Anomalies are a reasonable way to present the data but, for annual averages, it doesn’t matter whether you examine anomalies or average annual temperatures, you’ll see the same changes.
Really there is no such thing as an average temperature. The concept of an average temperature only became important once the climate modelers arrived. The temperature changes every hour in most locations. And a global average temperature is a pretty meaningless concept. Anomalies depend on a base point and who is to say what that base point is?
Really there is such thing as an average temperature. For any given geographical location, all one needs to do is record the temperature periodically for a given time interval. The average temperature is the “area under the curve” divided by the length of the time interval. This is simple stuff that was taught in Calc 101.
Alan: a global average temperature is a pretty meaningless concept. Anomalies depend on a base point and who is to say what that base point is?
I think you miss the point Alan. Averages are easy to calculate, they are far from meaningless and it doesn’t matter what is the base point. Maybe it is only a meaningless “concept” if you do not like what is revealed. Maybe the meaning is more obvious if they showed a decline trend.
a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
1. something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
I guess for those that don’t get the big picture, anomalies make sense. But I started as a geology student, and ended up as a climatology student. So my perspective is a bit larger than most “climate experts”, who seem to think that the tail end of this interglacial is somehow the standard by which all climates should be compared. What I learned through my education is that there is no “normal” in climate or weather, and IMHO, claims that there is a “normal” climate is simply ignorance.
No, this just isn’t true. Annual averages of anomalies instead of absolute temps are used for very good reasons.
I don’t think anyone here bothered to look up how “anomaly” is used in this context, and there are endless misguided statements because of it.
Kristi, grab a dictionary and follow along, it’s time to start thinking for yourself.
a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
1. something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
So, a few commenters here don’t line average temps and don’t like anomalies Would any of them care to say how we should present temperature or climate data to show warming or cooling, globally?
I support using the term “average”, and encourage its usage when discussing climate. I was able to convince my state climatologist to abandon the use of “normal” in favor of the correct term, average. Of course when discussing averages it is important to make sure that everyone understands what period of time is being used to determine said average.
I also strongly encourage the use of error bars, and the admission that when it comes to global temperatures we are making good guesses based upon our best methods. But there is no certainty in measuring global climate, and anyone who claims that there is does not know of what they speak or they are trying to deceive.
Mike,
Great questions!
How about ensuring that the “global temperature” actually measured temperature, oh, maybe, globally?
Current “global averages” are manipulated fraudulent guesses based on measurements from a few places on the globe.
With the current array of measuring stations–poorly distributed, and not stable–climate “scientists” just make up temperatures for huge swathes of the globe. These made up temperatures are part of the “average.”
Though there are many other issues with the “average global temperature,” that’s a pretty fundamental one.
But then, how about if you ask a mathematician about the concept of a “global average temperature?”
Well, maybe there’s not such thing?
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
Christopher Essex, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario
Bjarne Andresen, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
ABSTRACT:
Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html
The main problem with anomalies is that you can change any short period with them and it effect’s everything before and after. This is the ideal tool for frequently adjusting to what you want it to show and not what it should show. It is how the significant cooling period during the 1940’s and 1970’s has been removed to almost a pause. With absolute values changes don’t effect before and after, only the part that has been changed.
For example :-
When 0.5c cooling is removed to zero trend, further future 0.5c warming without this change would equal to before. Therefore with this removed we now have further 0.5c warming which was invented because of the previous cooling removed.
Matt,
&w=1484
Even better, to strip away the con-men’s “anomalies-make-numbers-scarier” approach, let’s look at the actual temperatures of the “global average” for the last 140 years:
With all the hockey sticks stripped away, getting rid of the stockbroker’s favorite trick–“trends-to-tomorrow-buy-now!”, you see that, even with the massive alterations to the official record, the change in “average temperature” is miniscule. Your home’s thermostat can hardly register the difference between 1880 and 2016.
24 hour changes in temperature, in one place, here on Earth, regularly swing 100 degrees.
Relax.
For the statistical refutation that I was referring to, you will have to go back to Gator69 post.
Thankyou from the bottom of my heart Gator69 for alerting me to these 2 videos
My pleasure Alan, pass them on.
Mr Kummer, An excellent article.
But judging by half the comments (and your patient replies) you must feel a bit like a human worm-hole: attempting to connect two separate universes.
zazove,
Par for the course here.
But this shows why Anthony Watts is a prince in the climate debates. He posts material that much of his audience dislikes.
Few do that in the climate wars. Most website proprietors feed their audience exciting morality plays and simplistic stories — but only content matching their tribal beliefs.
@ur momisugly zazove…nice analogy
No matter what happens, cold, hot, wet, dry, extreme, calm, it’s all controlled by the MagicalMysticalMiracleMolecule. They haven’t moved the goalposts, they’ve installed them along the entire field perimeter.
There is no evidence in oceans or land and continents that 6 years have been warmer than 1998, just about manage one being very similar and that’s it.
This is all that is needed to suggest this a prime example of how much exaggerated rubbish this so called estimated set is.
Only adjustments cause ocean warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/offset:0.3/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979
Only one year rivals 1998, 2016.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979
Only adjustments cause warming 2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979
The more frequently adjusted show the most warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979
Over 40% of the surface data is made up by estimates or interpolation.
GISS and NOAA are examples how not to do, not any more observation data sets. HADCRUD also at it, but with considerable less adjustments.
The next few years depending what happens will show up how much these are going to continue conning the public even more. All these do is add about 0.4c on top of the recent warming to exaggerate its extent. When in reality there is little difference between 1998 and 2016.
I don’t think you need to worry about a step up, in a couple of years we will be into the grand solar minimum and temps will begin to fall in earnest. What are they going to say when the graph shows a sharp decline in yearly temps starting in a couple of years?
The history of temperature change shown in government produced graphs shows a pretty definite pattern of equal length periods of continuous warming and pauses in warming. That pattern was reflected in a changeover from warming to pause in warming around 2003 or 2004. Considering El Ninos as a part of this pattern of global average temperature change is misleading. El Ninos are short term climate events whose cause is known and should be ignored in any discussion of global average temperature change. I am suspicious of the work of government measuring agencies such as NOAA and the NASA climate office when their supervisors appear to have bought into the Man-made climate change argument. If past history is any guide then the pause that began around 2004 should last until around 2034 with the current few warm years being only a short- lived situation.
If the seeming temperature change pattern evident during the twentieth century persists through the twenty-first century then there will only be continuous warming from about 2034 until 2064 and from 2094 until 2100. Also, the current pause began about 2003-4 not 1998 according to how I read the chart.