From the “worse than we thought” department comes this new climate model, but at least they acknowledge the pause.
The next few years could be “anomalously warm”, according to a new study.
Researchers have developed a mathematical model to predict how average global surface air temperatures will vary over the next few years.
The results suggest that the period from 2018 to 2022 could see an increased likelihood of extreme temperatures.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Communications.
The warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 is not increasing at a perfectly steady rate.
In the early years of the 21st Century, scientists pointed to a hiatus in warming. But several analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.
These variations from year-to-year do not affect the long-term trend in warming temperatures.
Now, a new method for trying to predict global temperatures suggests the next few years will be hotter than expected.
Rather than using traditional climate simulation techniques, Florian Sévellec, from the CNRS in Brest, France, and Sybren S Drijfhout, from the University of Southampton, developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions in the 20th and 21st Century and look for situations that are comparable to the present day.
Future possibilities
The team then used these climatic “analogues” to deduce future possibilities.
In particular, the anomalous warmth predicted over the next few years is due to a low probability of intense cold climatic events.
Once the algorithm is “learned” (a process which takes a few minutes), predictions are obtained in a few hundredths of a second on a laptop. In comparison, supercomputers require a week using traditional simulation methods.
Gabi Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study, said: “The authors have tried to predict whether global climate variability will make the next years warmer or cooler overall than the mean warming trend. They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.
“The findings suggest it’s more likely we’ll get warmer years than expected in the next few years.
Full article here
As noted further in the article, the result is “purely statistical”, so take it with a grain of salt, because I suspect the “learning” part of the algorithm doesn’t handle long-term natural variation well at all, just like the short term memory of humans often can’t recall the intensity of weather events in the far past. Of course, humans programmed this, so…
UPDATE: Here’s the paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05442-8
A novel probabilistic forecast system predicting anomalously warm 2018-2022 reinforcing the long-term global warming trend
Abstract
In a changing climate, there is an ever-increasing societal demand for accurate and reliable interannual predictions. Accurate and reliable interannual predictions of global temperatures are key for determining the regional climate change impacts that scale with global temperature, such as precipitation extremes, severe droughts, or intense hurricane activity, for instance. However, the chaotic nature of the climate system limits prediction accuracy on such timescales. Here we develop a novel method to predict global-mean surface air temperature and sea surface temperature, based on transfer operators, which allows, by-design, probabilistic forecasts. The prediction accuracy is equivalent to operational forecasts and its reliability is high. The post-1998 global warming hiatus is well predicted. For 2018–2022, the probabilistic forecast indicates a warmer than normal period, with respect to the forced trend. This will temporarily reinforce the long-term global warming trend. The coming warm period is associated with an increased likelihood of intense to extreme temperatures. The important numerical efficiency of the method (a few hundredths of a second on a laptop) opens the possibility for real-time probabilistic predictions carried out on personal mobile devices.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s that weasel word “may”.
…and so predictable
Heat wave in Britain….as opposed to cold, cloudy, damp, rain, floods, dreary, and flat out miserable…and it’s permanent
But we already covered this extreme cold is also caused by global warming…
I bought some permanent ink and I hope it will not disappear as soon as the permanent hot weather did. 21degree C and cloudy is not a heat wave in my book.
Exactly right, Bob Burban. Whenever I see “may” used as related to a possibility, I mentally change it to “may or may not.” This is one of many tactics to fight confirmation bias.
“The results SUGGEST that the period from 2018 to 2022 COULD see an increased LIKELIHOOD of extreme temperatures.”
Three weasel words, same sentence. Unfalsifiable statement.
Just this morning I saw James Renwick on TV news in New Zealand spouting this rubbish.
He was head of NIWA in New Zealand and is now a professor at Victoria University in Wellington.
He along with Jim Salinger are New Zealand’s warmist elite and he was wheeling out the usual nonsense about the Californian wild fires and that global warming will bring more flooding more storms and more droughts as New South Wales is experiencing and rising sea levels .
It is a well known fact that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere can only cause the global temperature to rise .6 of a degree Celsius
Any greater rise can only be through positive feed backs from increased water vapour in the atmosphere .
I cannot see how increased water vapour in the atmosphere , if that actually happened could cause more droughts .
At the present time the tropical hotspot that is driving this theory has not been located .
But this paper is excellent, save it! It’s a short term prediction made by the climate cult, and one you can probably add to the hepe in a few years.
And when the word “may” isn’t used its that despicable “settled science”. It a “probabilistic forecast system” ffs, what do expect?
Only those who know nothing about science, ever think that science is settled.
PS: Just declaring the science settled, doesn’t make it so.
I’ll give you a weasel word: tout
verb
1.
attempt to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner
Something you excel at.
The interesting thing is that the “warmth” is coming from a lack of very cold weather, not more hot weather.
Which indeed summarises the warming since the 1970-ies: the winters were getting less severe, as opposed to the summers getting hotter.
That is exactly what they do not want people to know. Warming means longer, not hotter summers and shorter, less harsh winters. I am still looking for the downside of this, as the longer summers and less cold nights in summer means a better crop-growing season. A complete win.
Speaking as someone who was raised on lives on a farm that grows vegetables and such you are 110% correct, longer growing seasons means more food is harvested to feed people.
“That is exactly what they do not want people to know. Warming means longer, not hotter summers and shorter, less harsh winters.”
Are you making that up or do you have some data?
It really is amazing how many things Ryan knows, that just aren’t so.
PS: Whining “you’re wrong” over and over again isn’t data either.
Which basically is the greenhouse effect – more stability, less fluctuation – what you get in areas of higher greenhouse gases. Less extremes not more.
Not the greenhouse effect. It’s the effect of a warming pole or at least it should be. Except that the poles do not appear to be warming
Gotta remember to be correct about my terminology on this board – what I meant was ‘in areas of high greenhouse gas concentration’.
Tom, they were well aware of UHI…so it’s the nights getting warmer too right?
…that was the prediction I remember….night time temps would get warmer
…convenient
Did I read that right? They’re modelling – models?
Yo dawg, I heard you liked models, so here’s a model of models so you can model what you’re modeling.
Yes, an old Internet meme – but applicable here!
Which model is on first?
No Witch Model is on second.
LOL!
Even more silly than that, they are using predictions about the past from models as input to another model to predict the future:
“They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.”
Actual data from previous years obviously wasn’t accurate enough.
{facepalm}
Exactly,from earlier in the piece we have this…” developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions in the 20th and 21st Century and look for situations that are comparable to the present day.”
It begs the question why not search for actual conditions that are comparable to the here and now? More useful surely!
The assumption seems to be that models that have current conditions that are roughly analogous to current conditions must be the most accurate, so there projections for the future must also be accurate.
So, did they basically just pick that Russian model, the only one that even comes close to reality?
Hilariously, actual data from previous years ISN’T accurate enough on a global scale. Neither is present data! But it’s good enough for pontificating.
Models all the way down…
Um, its about the future… what were you expecting them to use? An actual crystal ball? Unfortunately, they aren’t real so for now computers are all we have.
If they ever find a model that can accurately hindcast current conditions, let me know.
No, they have
“developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions in the 20th and 21st Century and look for situations that are comparable to the present day.”
i.e. they are using voodoo and metaphor and astrological type techniques in order to get published in Nature Communications (because that is all it takes).
Since the models that generated the projections used as input are almost as accurate as a monkey throwing darts, then the predictions of this new & improved model should be almost as accurate as… a monkey throwing darts.
Such pronouncements will become more detached from reality than usual with cooling in the monthly records for AMO and UAH satellite data.
Would we have heard about this if it had predicted LOWER temperatures?
Or would they have adjusted the model until it produced higher temperatures?
How do we know they didn’t do that?
““The findings suggest it’s more likely we’ll get warmer years than expected in the next few years.
Who decides what is meant by “expected” temperatures ??
They’re expecting the next ice age to start soon but, it will be warmer than that.
Yes. ‘More likely’ we’ll get warm years…..
But if not, well there’s always uncertainty to blame.
If yes…then it the new model is ‘confirmed…and it’s worse than predicted!’.
This is actually brilliant.
A Marvelous Little Ploy:
Global Warming when it’s hot,
Climate Change when it’s cold,
and a Pause if it stays still…
“uncertainty to blame”? You really don’t get this math stuff do you. Its a probabilistic forecast system – probablities are what you get.
Ryan complaining about other people’s ability to understand.
That’s rich.
Maybe he meant ‘problematic’. He seems to have a difficult time with understanding basic language.
The maths is crap Ryan. Deal with it.
Only in cooked to a crisp books were the five hottest years all after 2010.
In the real world, rather than Planet GIGO, 1998 is still Number Two since 1979, just barely pipped out by its fellow super El Nino year of 2016.
Earth has cooled dramatically since 2016.
Note also that 2010 was an El Nino year.
It now goes 2016, 1998, 2015, 2014 and 2010, which of course ignores the 1930s, which were hotter than the 1990s. The super El Nino was building in 2015 and 2014.
And it took 18 years of “Pause” for GASTA to equal 1998.
And none of those temperatures reached levels seen during the 1930’s.
I was just about to mention the 1930s MarkW. Of course the 1930s have since been adjusted to be colder (as evidenced by the blink gif that everyone around these parts have seen numerous times that shows temps as they looked pre-2000 vs the adjusted post-2000 version of those same temps in which you can literally see the peaks on the 1930s and 1998 swap position as to which is a higher peak).
US or global?
Yes
Yeah, even the cool outlier of UAH show it plunging off the chart.
No hockey stick there Ryan.
And we should believe this model why? I predict it will be less accurate than current models.
‘at least they acknowledge the pause’
Now that it’s safely a couple El Nino years behind them, they can dismiss it. Sorta like Climategate – oh that was years ago – and it was debunked.
See how easy that is?
” … developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions ”
It’s applied physics , not a social science . Show us the computational physics from the temperature of the Sun to our surface .
Caveat emptor! Past performance is no guarantee for future performance. Since any ‘learning algorithm’ tries to internalise the past performance, the expectation that it may tell you something about future performance that you do not already know is an illusion.
At least it’s a new and quicker method of getting to the wrong answer. That’s efficient in the new warped science world of smart, quick headline writing. Maybe it will generate more funding in the new, smart, quick modeling world.
Say, how many times in the past have we had long cycle down turn in the AMO, low solar cycle with two years of near solar minimum conditions, and neutral ENSO?
Re: “In the early years of the 21st Century, scientists pointed to a hiatus in warming. ”
Actually, it was the ‘climate scientists’ that denied the hiatus and it was the ‘skeptics’ that forced the hiatus in warming to the forefront of climate debate.
Note how even this simple truth has been ‘adjusted’ to fit the fraudulent AGW narrative….
Does anyone seriously deny that the models run hot and are therefore unreliable?
There’s a rule in statistics that says you shouldn’t process data that’s already the result of processing other data. Processing data that’s the result of unreliable models has to be one worse.
This is behavior is really adolescent. An eight year old has a pretty good handle on civilized behavior. Then, a few years later, puberty sets in and all the simple rules learned in kindergarten are forgotten. Teenagers do things they know they shouldn’t do.
In this case it looks like scientists doing what they know they shouldn’t do.
But, the recent El Nino has forced world temperatures up to the model trend line, thus proving that the models were right all along.
At least that’s what accredited climate scientists tell me.
The El Nino spiked GASTA to between the Scenario C and B lines, but nowhere near the A line, ie Business as Usual, which is what has happened to CO2. Scenario C assumed no more emissions after 2000, which of course is not what happened at all. Scenario B was basically Scenario C, but with reductions in trace gases other than CO2.
Far from stopping or even slowing down, CO2 growth has if anything accelerated since 1988, so reality smacks down the GCMs in general and Hansen 1988 in particular.
“They have skillfully used worldwide climate model data …”
Hmm, shouldn’t that have been “They have skillfully used unskillful worldwide climate model data …”
I have a better idea: I will input synthetic data into a model to generate what I can now call just “data”, which I will then input into another model, which will, thus, produce results based on modeled synthetic data.
Like many models, they look good on the surface, but when you get to know them, they can be crazy messed up inside.
That sounds like eye candy to me.
Yep, that sounds about right — computer models are eye candy for myopic intellects. No metaphors here. (^_^)
I’ve developed a great modelling instrument, it consists of a cube shape with 21 little dots.
IF the science were settled the BBC would be able to say:
‘will be be exceptionally warm’
Not:
‘may be exceptionally warm’
Exactly. Either its “may” (weasel word) or “is” (settled science).
Either way its Confirmation bias 101.
Irony is lost on you.
Basic question here: What is the shelf life of a BBC touted climate prediction? I’ll start the bidding at 3 months.
3 months. That would be about the time Northern Scotland experiences unexpectedly early snowfall. Good call.
That’s easy! They will last precisely until the event occurs. Then they are either true or not. 🙂
How to stop CO2 production during the solar minimum? Can not. Whats more, this CO2 will cool the troposphere!
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
n + 14/7N→ 14/6C + p
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
The rate of 14C production can be modelled and is between 16,400 and 18,800 atoms 14C ( m^−2 s^−1), which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack, but attempts to directly measure the production rate in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earths magnetic field.
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
You make a big mistake by not appreciating the role of the stratosphere in climate change. The increase in GCR causes an increase in ionization in the lower stratosphere, depending on the geomagnetic field. This leads to a local temperature increase in the lower stratosphere at high latitudes. It will increase stratospheric intrusions in winter and spring periods.
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
Total ozone in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
GCR radiation is almost at the level of 2009.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Noctilucent clouds form when summertime wisps of water vapor rise to the top of the atmosphere and wrap themselves around specks of meteor smoke. Mesospheric winds assemble the resulting ice crystals into NLCs. In 2017 a heat wave in the mesosphere melted those crystals, causing a brief “noctilucent blackout.” Could something similar, but opposite, be happening now? Perhaps a cold spell in the mesosphere is extending the season. Another possibility is the solar cycle. Previous studies have shown that NLCs sometimes intensify during solar minimum. Solar minimum conditions are in effect now as the sun has been without spots for 30 of the past 31 days.
LATE-SEASON SURGE IN NOCTILUCENT CLOUDS: Noctilucent clouds (NLCs) are behaving strangely. Normally, NLCs begin to dim in late July, then fade away completely as August unfolds. It is their seasonal pattern. This year, though, the night-shining clouds are surging as July comes to an end. “We had a mind-blowing display of noctilucent clouds display on July 26th,” reports Kairo Kiitsak, who sends this picture from Simuna, Estonia:
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=28&month=07&year=2018
The local increase in temperature in the lower stratosphere is responsible for the increase of water vapor in the mesosphere. Through these “holes” the water vapor escapes into the stratosphere.
“In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.”
http://journals.uran.ua/geofizicheskiy/article/view/111146
Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia
Galina Gavrilyeva and Petr Ammosov
Yu. G. Shafer Institute for Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy SB RAS, 677098, Yakutsk, Russian Federation
Received: 13 Jun 2017 – Discussion started: 04 Oct 2017 – Revised: 29 Jan 2018 – Accepted: 31 Jan 2018 – Published: 08 Mar 2018
Abstract. The long-term temperature changes of the mesopause region at the hydroxyl molecule OH (6-2) nighttime height and its connection with the geomagnetic activity during the 23rd and beginning of the 24th solar cycles are presented. Measurements were conducted with an infrared digital spectrograph at the Maimaga station (63°N, 129.5°E). The hydroxyl rotational temperature (TOH) is assumed to be equal to the neutral atmosphere temperature at the altitude of ∼ 87km. The average temperatures obtained for the period 1999 to 2015 are considered. The season of observations starts at the beginning of August and lasts until the middle of May. The maximum of the seasonally averaged temperatures is delayed by 2 years relative to the maximum of the solar radio emission flux (wavelength of 10.7cm), and correlates with a change in geomagnetic activity (Ap index). Temperature grouping in accordance with the geomagnetic activity level showed that in years with high activity (Ap>8), the mesopause temperature from October to February is about 10K higher than in years with low activity (Ap<=8). Cross-correlation analysis showed no temporal shift between geomagnetic activity and temperature. The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.51 at the 95% level.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/3363/2018/
And 2007 was going to have a BBQ summer.
I don’t think they looked back enough for analogues of what is happening.
I see the next few years being slightly cooler than expected. But obviously it all depends on expectations.
Your graph also shows how grossly HadCRU has cooled the 1998 Super El Nino.
I thought the graph in Fig.1 published in the journal Nature Communications looks very familiar, but the authors failed to realise that the ‘residual’ is correlated to the ‘LOD’.
I posted same graph on WUWT (December 26, 2015 12:16 pm)
Here it is again: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Lod-CrT4.gif
( regretfully my old website was closed down by the operator; in any of the old internet links replace talktalk.net part with co.uk)
Anomalous Anthropogenic Global Warming
or
Exceptional Anthropogenic Global Warming
To think this all started with Global Cooling and reached its climax with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Chaos. I wonder what the uncharacterized or unwieldy factors may be for this change of heart.
Really now.
They look through the outputs of models to find situations that are comparable to the real world, then assume that whatever the models say will happen in the near future, will happen in the real world.
“The findings suggest it’s more likely we’ll get warmer years than expected in the next few years.”
The models that they are using for their inputs have all been tuned to assume that we will warm as CO2 goes up.
So is it a surprise that a new model that uses these existing models as it’s input, will find that we are going to warm in the next few years????