A new temperature reconstruction, using proxy temperature measurements from locations in central Asia, has revealed that there has been no warming in the past 432 years.
by Vijay Jayaraj
The Global Warming “Hiatus” or Pause
The word “hiatus” became popular in recent years after the discovery of a pause or hiatus in global warming. There has been a lack of warming in the atmosphere since 1999, despite the predictions of computer climate models.
The theories that support a hiatus in global warming vary in their conclusions regarding the overall climate scenario. While some forecast that the hiatus will be brief, others say it represents a major shift in our climate system.
Regardless of whether there has been significant shift in the global climate trend, the word “hiatus” implies that there has indeed been a warming trend and that it has stopped—at least momentarily.
That is partly correct, as many well-established scientific studies indicate gradual warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century.
It can, however, be declared with absolute certainty that there has been no dangerous warming in the past two decades, and even in the past 200 years. The post-Little Ice Age warming trend has been anything but dangerous, causing hardly any negative impact on the ecosystem or the life forms. Instead, it has brought lengthened growing seasons, more abundant vegetative growth, and more abundant food for people and everything else.
It Is More than Just a Hiatus: Long-term Stability, Followed by Cooling
But more and more studies are beginning to indicate that there has been no significant warming trend in the past five centuries.
Among them is the recent paper by Byambaa et.al., which reveals a lack of warming in Central Asia since 1580 A.D.
The paper used tree ring-width proxy temperature measurements to calculate the mean June‐July air temperatures for the period 1402–2012 and June–December precipitation for the period 1569–2012.
Figure 6: A graphical comparison of tree ring based temperature reconstructions from the southern Altai. June temperatures for the eastern Kazakhstan Altai since 1698 (a), mean May–September temperatures for the western Chinese Altai since 1639 (b), June temperatures for the middle Chinese Altai since 1570 (c), mean June–July temperatures for the eastern Chinese Altai since 1613 (d), mean June–July temperatures for the southern Mongolian Altai since 1402 (e, this study). Thin grey lines and thick black lines show the reconstructed temperature and 13‐year low‐pass‐filtered curve, respectively. (a–d) from Zhang et al. (2015). Dark and light grey bars show cold and warm periods. The cold periods of low solar activities are named by S, Spörer; M, Maunder, D, Dalton, and G, Gleissberg minima (Schwikowski et al., 2009) and triangles indicate volcanic eruptions (Briffa et al., 1998; Eichler et al., 2009)
The authors conclude that the past 5 centuries have been relatively cooler. They also find the 20th century to be slightly warmer, but the warming was discontinuous. However, the 20th century warming eventually collapsed due to late 20th century cooling, which they deem common across the mountains of China and Nepal. They also find that solar cycles and volcanic activity were the major reasons for temperature anomalies during the past 5 centuries—not carbon dioxide.
Numerous other studies have attested this recent cooling in Central Asia, especially China. Temperature readings from 118 national weather stations since 1951 in Northeast China reveal a remarkable and significant cooling in China since 1998, the same year since which global atmospheric temperature failed to show any significant warming. Other studies show this trend over all of China.
China is not the only country to experience this late 20th century cooling.
A dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers published during the past three years reveal that the Arctic ceased to warm and the Antarctic began to cool. Other papers report that the 20th century also saw a significant dip in global ocean temperatures.
For example, surface temperatures from Japan have shown no warming trend during the past 50 years and are now beginning to show a cooling trend. And scientists have warned that there might even be a 1-degree Celsius global cooling by the year 2100.
The emergence of these studies has particularly made climate scientists suspect that our climate system’s biggest influencer could be the sun, not greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Hundreds of scientific papers support their intuition and document the natural variations in the climate system owing to the impact of the sun.
The recent cooling, as revealed in the studies mentioned earlier, coincides with the weakest solar cycle on record. The current solar cycle (number 24) is the weakest on record, and scientists have predicted that the next two solar cycles will be much weaker, resulting in more cooling.
In all likelihood, we will experience significant cooling in the coming decade, not a mere hiatus in warming.
Our understanding of the earth’s climate system is still in its infancy. With more and more empirical evidence, it will take us at least a couple of decades to develop a better grasp of how our climate system works.
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Bangalore, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What? No GlobalWarming?
Vijay will be off the Christmas card list at his alma mater, University of Easy Access, who have been telling the world that the end is nigh, whose “funding” depends on perpetuating that myth.
Somebody please get the word to the GOP before they go and do something Stupid.
Trump needs to get rid of the Endangerment Clause, yesterday! This thing is now a fact-free social contagion.
Welcome to the post truth world.
What, no Little Ice Age according to the graphs presented to show lack of warming?
Wait a minute, we rail against Mann for his tree ring reconstruction but then nod approvingly when someone else uses the same technique to come up with a result we sceptics like.
Apart from the type of proxy used, the data covers a short part of the year. Tree rings were dubious when Mann used them and remain so. The more modern data using non tree ring data may have some merit.
tonyb
My initial reaction, too, tonyb. “We tortured the data again and got the answer WE wanted. I haven’t read the actual paper to see if anything new was added to the brew.
james and tonyb: We do rail against Mann, rightly, BECAUSE we know he got the answer he wanted. McIntyre proved he tossed non-conforming data. Here, 1) I don’t get that anybody is cheering, except maybe insofar as this study helps debunk Mann (I’ll cheer for that!); 2) We don’t know if these folks were looking for this outcome (if so, they are clearly qualified for Climate Science); 3) Vijay says something about “infancy” for this field. He doesn’t seem to be saying this is the least bit conclusive; and 4) we don’t know if they tossed data.
I do agree that tree rings are barely, if at all, suited to this purpose. If I’m somewhere in central Asia, I’d be burning it to cook my yak! (h/t johnny carson)
they can be used to compare against other tree ring studies, which is still somewhat useful
No one (of us, anyway) trust treemometers, but the hockey-stick group does. Getting conflicting results from using them is worth an approving nod, and torpedoes their proxy.
Mann used Bristlecone Pines, which are not reliable proxies for temperature because they are shown to vary according to other factors. Some trees make better proxies than others.
I would like to know what species of tree would be usable. I worked at a museum of natural history that had a display composed of a cross section of two trees of the same age and species (ash if I recall correctly). One of the trees was twice the diameter of the other. The information plaque talked about how the environment could affect tree growth. The larger tree it turns out was at the edge of a swamp. The smaller tree was slightly uphill from the swamp a mere 20′ away from the larger tree in soil that was essentially all sand below the topsoil. The tree at the edge of the swamp also had a greater exposure to the sun.
The irony is the museum was run by global warming fanatics that were oblivious to the fact that one of their exhibits was proof that trees are not suitable as temperature proxies.
@Greg F May 16, 2019 at 8:43 pm
Point taken, BUT… I have a little more confidence in taking a single tree and comparing the most recent rings against the earlier rings, and I believe those variations can tell us something. The trouble is, what does it tell us? We have had numerous studies show that trees make better rain gauges than treemometers, another study says the variation in ring growth was most likely caused by the introduction of sheep, and the increasing over-grazing of sheep and other livestock, then there’s a study that says that growth variations correspond most closely with CO&8322; levels, then a study that shows a variation of zinc levels is the cause, then another that says… And that’s only among the possible correlations that the researchers actual studied, what about unknown factors that the researchers never even thought of? Does tree ring growth vary with the level of UV radiation, or TSI, possibly cosmic rays or even pirates in the North Atlantic, maybe second star on the left and straight on ’til morning? I would have to read the report, and probably won’t, to tell how they calibrated what they thought the tree rings were telling them, though I would venture a weak defense of the report by saying perhaps the different time periods selected for each area were because that was the best data for producing reliable signals? But in short, we don’t know what varying tree ring width reveals, I doubt anyone does because it will always be the result of a combination of factors that cannot be untangled.
I don’t think that is true, at least not for me. I am not saying I believe this reconstruction, but it does show that there is an alternative to Mann et al and that is of value.
Briffa’s original tree ring graph showed lowered temperatures after 1980, so Mann spliced thermometer records on to show warming. According to the emails, Briffa commented around this time that he was skeptical of the reconstructions in general. He seems to have fallen in line, (possibly due to pressure?). Jones went even further calling some of Mann’s work ‘bullshit’ at one point.
Mann said (in reply?) the main thing was PR (!) via Real Climate
Treemometers again? I don’t trust them to give any reliable temperature signal.
I am not a fan of “tree ring proxies”….!
Yes but they let the alarmists do their stuff. Remember truth is not the goal but keeping the gravy coming.
So I assume the IPCC will be disbanded in the next few weeks, Michael Mann et al will be issuing sincere mea culpas, and Occasional Car Sex will withdraw her Green New Deal.
What a relief!
Alexandria with occasional cortex (function) is her real name. Please do not mix up names!
I thought it was ‘Accidentally Occasionally Coherent’.
And I thought it was A. Occluded-Cortex !
I thought it was paid actor pretending to be an actual politician.
Isn’t that what all of them are?
“Temperature readings from 118 national weather stations since 1951 in Northeast China reveal a remarkable and significant cooling in China since 1998”
Remarkable and significant cooling? Uh huh.
That is not what the linked study says.
The annual mean time series of Tmax, Tmin, and mean tem-perature (Tmean) anomalies are shown in Fig. 2a–c. For thestudy period (1951–2014), annual mean temperature anoma-lies reflect significant positive trends (P<0.05),andthewarming rates of Tmax, Tmin, and Tmean are 0.20, 0.42,and 0.34 °C/decade, respectively,
Did you look at the figure in the study? Since 1998 Tmax, Tmin and Tmean are all negative.
The key here being since 1998.
Did you look at it? The “cooling” in “Northeast China” is NOT significant.
From fig 2a-c in the linked study:
“Statistically significant(P< 0.05) trends are marked with asterisks."
The headline: "…Studies Reveal Long-Term Lack of Warming" is a lie. The opposite is true.
He clearly says ‘since 1998’. Temperature readings have been taken since 1951. You didn’t read far enough:
” in the period 1998–2014, the annual mean temperature consistently exhibits a cooling phenomenon in Northeast China, and the trends of Tmax, Tmin, and Tmean are −0.36, −0.14, and −0.28 °C/decade respectively”
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/China
All China shows recent decline. But significant warming from cooler period of 70s to 80s. And century plus warming trend. And the longer duration trend is what you count as “global warming” not less than 20 year time periods, which weather and regions will cool and warm over shorter time periods and this has nothing to do with global cooling or warming.
That is not what the linked study says.
It does say it, rather unambiguously even:
“(2) in the period 1998–2014, the annual mean temperature consistently exhibits a cooling phenomenon in Northeast China, and the trends of Tmax, Tmin, and Tmean are −0.36, −0.14, and −0.28 °C/decade respectively . . . ”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318230083_A_remarkable_climate_warming_hiatus_over_Northeast_China_since_1998
It unambiguously says the temperature change since 1998 is not significant.
now read the second conclusion. I find it amusing that alarmists call it “cherry picking” when it really is “the most recent trend”
You need to learn how to “interpret” raw data – you can’t just go jumping to conclusions such as “the date clearly shows…”: it’s all in the post-grad interpretation studies of the meta-data, which clearly will show a warming trend. Always.
“Temperature readings from 118 national weather stations since 1951 in Northeast China reveal a remarkable and significant cooling in China since 1998”
From fig 2a-c in the linked study, this statement is correct. Tmax, Tmin and Tmean are all negative in value for that period.
” in the period 1998–2014, the annual mean temperature consistently exhibits a cooling phenomenon in Northeast China, and the trends of Tmax, Tmin, and Tmean are −0.36, −0.14, and −0.28 °C/decade respectively”
Where did you see them cite those numbers in the study? Because when I read the study I didn’t see that. Additionally, their conclusion of “A continuous 20th century warming trend was, however, not observed. A short combined cool and wet period was detected in the late 20th century, which was likely a result of volcanic‐induced cooling and a positive phase of the AO promoting an intensified subtropical westerly jet and a positive summer rainfall anomaly over the Altai‐Dzungarian region.” would seem to bely your assertion that they found warming in that period.
I guess maybe if you averaged everything out, but it still disproves the “hockey-stick” theory of global warming because that implied that we’ve been on a steady or increasing heating rate for decades due to more CO2.
He did what most acolytes do. He picked a point near the start of the data. He picked another point near the end of the data. Drew a straight line between the two points. Then declared, it is proven.
So I assume the IPCC will be disbanded in the next few weeks, Michael Mann et al will be issuing sincere mea culpas, and Occasional Car S-ex will withdraw her Green New Deal.
What a relief!
I expect to see the IPCC adopt these new temperature reconstructions as quickly, and without question, as they did the Mann hockey stick.
Doubled down, I see.
You know…..you can’t say one persons tree rings are crap….and another one isn’t
…I have no faith in any of them
Exactly my thought. I think tree rings will always tend to be flat over longer periods as they are not a good proxy of temperature, but rather of all of the things that go into making a tree grow (e.g., light, water, food (including CO2 and nitrates), and room to grow) and these things tend to even out over time. When small a tree needs less and as it grows it is able to gather more of what it needs or it doesn’t survive.
And with old tree rings, you are only analyzing the lucky survivors, not the 90+% that died because they weren’t protected from the elements…sort of the old “drowning swimmer reports dolphin pushed him to shore” but no report was available from the drowning swimmer that some dolphin pushed away from shore…..
Using these proxies is very complicated, the same goes for coral carbon isotopes, which some argue that they can be used to reconstruct CO2 concentration in water. The problem is that the photosynthetic rate of the symbiotic algae probably controls these isotopes much more strongly than variations in seawater CO2:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001670371500023X
One tree to rule Yamal and in the papers blind them.
Very clever, I bet you’ve been waiting years to use that one 😉
They are crap when one tree is used to represent a continent, or a divergence between proxy and temperature is hidden, or a method is used to mine for hockey sticks, or a precipitation proxy is used for temperature…
“…I have no faith in any of them”
Same here.
Vijay, I feel like it’s warming, and I can see CO2 when people breathe, and I am a precious little snowflake and I don’t want to melt, so why do you insist on all of this sciency nonsense? I’m Melting! Interesting report and a little sarcasm on behalf of snowflakes everywhere, thank you.
Warming is good, Ron. It is pretty good for our agriculture and for our planet.
almost frog-march time.
“The paper used tree ring-width proxy temperature measurements to calculate …”
I thought it has been thoroughly discussed that tree ring width is not a good proxy for temperature.
Good point Tom and I hope one of the experts will explain. Mann I think tampered with data which makes anything he produces suspect.
Mann didn’t temper with data, he just excluded data he didn’t like, and overweighted data he did like.
He also had a very dubious grasp of statistics and liked to include some data upside down, just for giggles…
I thought we didn’t believe that tree rings are a reliable proxy for temperature.
Susan – it is not that tree ring data used as a proxy for climatic temperature is bad, or good. it can be misused if the tree ring data are not properly selected and qualified. Tree rings are affected by climatic data, but they are also affected by other factors, such as precipitation, and the general health of the trees. If the tree growth has been constrained by those other factors, then they are not a proper proxy for climatic temperature.
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/tree-rings/
Note in the examples at the bottom of the page – the calculated temperature from tree ring data shows much less data scatter than the actual temperature measurements when thermometer data are available.
So what matters is how the tree ring data were selected and qualified … and it is important to understand that as a proxy tree rings are only an estimation
Tree rings have no relationship to temperature. That’s why Mike had to hide the decline.
Bullhockey. Of course warmer temperature, all other factors being equal, leads to greater growth. Only a biologically-ignorant dolt would deny that a longer growing season has no effect on tree ring width.
But other factors also influence tree growth so selection of tree ring data has to be done in such a way to control for those other factors.
No, tree rings are never a good proxy for annual mean temperature. The idea is ridiculous. Tree ring width is determined by how good the growing season was and that is controlled by many more variables than temperature. Stop using the d@mn tree rings!
Show your research that proves that tree ring growth has zero relationship to climatic temperature and length of growing season.
Of course there is no such thing – any kid with a high school course in biology knows the opposite is true.
You are practicing luddism, not science.
Tree ring growth is MORE CONTROLLED by CO2 amounts than by air temperature or length of growing season.
Mann has never acknowledged that a significant increase in CO2 affect his assumed temperature-tree ring width coefficients.
Absolutely not true. Length of growing season – which is affected by mean climatic temperature- is long proven to effect tree rings. Other factors also affect tree rings, but a carefully selected set of tree ring data DOES indicate mean temperature throughout the growing season.
You have no scientific backing for your ridiculous statement to the contrary. It’s biology.
Tree ring temperature proxies are not reliable. That has been demonstrated here before about Mann’s hockey stick. What is different about this one that it would be reliable now?
more than one tree used ?
See my reply to Susan. There is no flat “reliable’ or “unreliable” with tree ring data – it all depends upon the quality of the data used.
Perhaps it is not reliable. As Vijay clearly states: “Our understanding of the earth’s climate system is still in its infancy. With more and more empirical evidence, it will take us at least a couple of decades to develop a better grasp of how our climate system works.”
That is the real truth of the matter. The biggest ‘cherry-pick’ in the history of climate science was when the IPCC took Mann’s hockey stick and put it on the front page of their report, and front and center of every news outlet in the world. The hockey stick was an outlier in the scientific literature then and now. It remains an outlier, not just in paleoclimate studies, but in tree ring studies.
We don’t understand climate change very well at all, but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the current climate-crisis paradigm is utter nonsense!
“The recent cooling, as revealed in the studies mentioned earlier, coincides with the weakest solar cycle on record. The current solar cycle (number 24) is the weakest on record, ”
The linked study actually says that 24 is AMONG the weakest not THE weakest.
Oh No! The climate is stagnating! We’re doomed!
We have introduced enough an inertial change to atmosphere that the lag times associated with varying input are longer than the inertial dampers and we are doomed!
A stagnate climate represents a dying world ….
We have ‘x’ years to get off of our butts (and get out our wallets) to implement the change that is necessary to stop the stagnation.
We must act NOW to prevent Stagnant Climate!
We must immediately stop using fossil fuels, raise taxes, embrace veganism, and form a One World government. It’s the only way we can prevent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Stagnant Climate.
.
.
The solution is always the same. Only the crisis changes.
A lot of people think if you can create a model where CO2 is a dominant factor, and fit it to historical data, that you have proven something, even if the model has no predictive ability. Well, you can also create a model where CO2 is a much less insignificant factor.
Our grandchildren’s generation will look back at us and marvel at how bad we were at doing science, such that so many could be so wrong for so long.
As Eisenhower warned decades ago, when government pays for science, that money buys the results the government wants.
It’s not that we’re bad at science, it’s that governments have paid scientists to ‘prove’ things that aren’t true, in order to justify anti-democratic policies that the governments want to push.
For hundreds, no THOUSANDS of years, virtually EVERYONE believed that the Earth was flat! Oddly enough, it seems, MANY still believe that today! There is simply no limit to what people will con themselves into believing! And THEN do everything in their power to make EVERYONE else believe it, too! It isn’t just a science thing.
They argue so vehemently for a flat earth to the contrary of all observable data and logic that it leaves just one thing flat: their brains!
“For hundreds, no THOUSANDS of years, virtually EVERYONE believed that the Earth was flat! ”
Without specifying what time frame you’re talking about, it’s hard to say. Ancient Greeks and Egyptians certainly knew the Earth wasn’t flat.
A myth that needs to die
Yes, I know, just another bl@ur momisugly@dy online poll from you know who:
“As per the results, only 66 percent of 18-24 year-olds are firmly convinced of our planet’s spherical shape.”
“2 percent of adult Americans are firmly convinced Earth is as flat as a pancake.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk
Of course it could be that the respondents were far more intelligent than the pollsters as “spheroid” was not an option.
If you torture the data sufficiently, it will confess to whatever you want it to.
According to all those graphs, it was warmer in the past than it is today.
No unprecedented warming today means No CAGW today. There was no CAGW in the past with higher temperatures, so there will be no CAGW today with cooler temperatures.
There was also no runaway Greenhouse effect in the past even though CO2 levels were much higher than today.
CO2 looks like a minor player.
thank God the governments all stepped up and solved this crisis. now back to your regularly scheduled programming
I wait with bated breath the MSM’s announcement of this paper’s finding and very good news.
None of us will be around long enough to determine if CO2 controls the earth’s temperature. I don’t believe it for a second. Alarmists believe it wholeheartedly.
With how little we understand about the earth’s chaotic climate system, climate science appears to be more about belief than evidence. And that doesn’t seem right for any sort of science.
Mann has shown that you can get whatever you want from tree rings plus “novel” statistical procedures. The thermometers in Asia over the latter part of the modern record are interesting, though, supporting the genuine “Pause”. Did the US and EU fiddlers overlook these sites?
A British Labour MP (name escaped me) was interviewed on BBC this morning and, in near hysterical terms, said that we are now living with the first generation of people who will NOT die of old-age: they will die of ‘climate-change’!!!
And we wonder why our politicians are so bad.
Weren’t Mann’s tree ring data taking a dive towards the end of the 20st century? So that he traudulently replaced them with biased thermometer measurements? This data appears to behave in the same way. Someone ought to force M to withdraw his papers.
I don’t buy treemometers as sufficiently reliable indicators of warming or cooling to the accuracy needed use them as temp proxies. We’re talking tree rings that supposedly tell us it was for example 15.7 C vs. 15.2 C over some few years growing seasons span folks. I find that hard to believe.
Any appearance as a temp proxy to that accuracy is purely coincidental IMO.
+1
The “real” global “warming” is always… somewhere else!
The more global, the more average, the more grid box weighting, the more hockey sticks are found!
In the mean time, locally we actually see changes in wind patterns, urbanization, air quality and clouds.
I stopped reading when I read they used tree rings.
We have already proven that you can’t use tree rings as temperature proxies.
Holy bat guano, Batman!! Buy your parkas and move to the southern swamps now before the glaciers begin their march southward.
While I have doubts about the absolute accuracy of the tree rings WRT temperature, the must show “something” happened one year that didn’t happen in another.
My desk coffee cup coaster in front of me is a 80-90 year old ponderosa pine slice I cut in 2003. The rings definitely vary in size. But my correlation with actual weather data is stronger for rainfall than temperature. Additionally, our lot was modified in the mid-sixties to lay a foundation for the cabin. So this particular tree had more sunlight on one side than another, resulting in a pronounced coupla years’ bands of significant variance as you make your way around the tree from one side to the other.
I am so glad to finally see charts using absoulute temperatures versus a “cherry-picked” 30-year record used for an anomaly presentation. Trends and such are easily recognized, especially for 100 year periods of interest, nuch less 400 or 500 year intervals.
Gums sends…