Tuesday
Oct272015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Meehl bashes Karl
Oct 27, 2015 Climate: Surface The US CLIVAR project publishes a newsletter/cum journal, a recent issue of which was dedicated to the hiatus in global warming. Featuring papers from a variety of well-known climatologists, I was interested to see the headline article, from Gerald Meehl, which seems to take a fairly hefty pot-shot at the data tweaking approach adopted by many climatologists.
There have been recent claims that the early-2000s hiatus...was an artifact of problematic sea surface temperature (SST) data (Karl et al. 2015), lack of Arctic data (Cowtan and Way 2014), or both. Such claims indicate that when corrections are made to SST data, by taking into account various measurement methods that introduce biases in the data, then “there was no ‘hiatus’ in temperature rise...[and] a presumed pause in the rise of Earth’s average global surface temperature might never have happened” (Wendel 2015). Often there are issues with observed data that need adjusting - in this case such claims of “no hiatus” are artifacts of questionable interpretation of decadal timescale variability and externally forced response - not problems with the data. Thus, the hiatus is symptomatic of the much broader and very compelling problem of decadal timescale variability of the climate system.
Whether Meehl is any more correct than Karl is anyone's guess though.
Reader Comments (59)
"hiatus in global warming"
should be:
peak in global temperature.
Funny how, regardless of the criticism, they always come back to:
"everything is consistent with..."
Well someone is going to get an email form Oreskes!
I disagree with your final statement. Replacing good quality data (Argo floats) with poor quality data (bucket measurements) in order to confirm your bias is clearly beyond the pale for Meehl even by the appallingly low standards of climate science. As for Cowtan & Way, it is not admissible just to invent data where it doesn't exist. However neither Karl, Cowtan nor anyone else can produce the high CO2 sensitivity that would justify the alarmism engendered by the crazy reliance on unvalidated & now disproven models. And it doesn't matter if you call it a hiatus, pause or slowdown, the fact is that natural variation has been downplayed in order to leave the stage clear for a putative manmade warming that alarmists believe must be there despite their lying eyes telling them otherwise. The main reason they believe it is simply because so many of their peers also believe it. Alas nature just makes fools of them. The Swanson & Tsonis re-analysis using ocean cycles still holds up as the best explanation but that doesn't lead to alarm either - just a continuation of the mild and beneficial and probably natural warming.
The real AGW, from Asian industrialisation increasing Pacific region aerosols, thereby reducing low level cloud albedo, ended ~16 years ago when agglomeration caused the process to saturate.
The models, based on the assumption that this warming was from CO2, continue to predict warming: it does not exist because they got that physics wrong in 1976.
So how do these people account for the clear 'hiatus' found in satellite measurements?
The temperature changes on these short timescales whether rising, falling or in hiatus tell us absolutely nothing about climate or causes of climate change. The current hiatus is just part of the background noise and will one day be lost within the real long term and important trend.
The new Little Ice Age will really make itself felt at the end of SC24, late 2018. The swing in temperature in the temperate northern hemisphere will be particularly severe because the Arctic is entering its freeze cycle, hence the negative Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Expect a reduction of global temperature mean by ~1 K, a return to the weather of the 1870s-80s. However, it could be worse if the sun has a new Maunder Minimum, giving a 1690s' cold spell.
The mechanism is that fresh ice, because of the previous melt part of the cycle, has low concentrations of dimethyl sulphide and Fe-containing dust. The former reduces cloud albedo as it forms Cloud Condensation Nuclei, directly observed in the early 2000s. The latter is needed for phytoplankton blooms, also observed as the Arctic melted, causing additional CCN well away from ice. These effects cause the melt part of the 50-70 year cycle; the same mechanism, with ample evidence from ice cores, accounts for Milankovitch amplification at the end of ice ages.
Dung:
What timescale is climate then?
NCC
Alas the blackguards now use that 'global dimming' notion as a method of propping up their original assumption of high CO2 sensitivity by a different and entirely contradictory route:
http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538
The assumption that the expected warming is 'hidden' by cooling rather than just not there in the first place may be ridiculous to people outside the echo chamber of climate hysteria but it is endemic. As is the assumption that failed models with much of the natural physics known to be missing or just plain wrong can somehow eliminate natural variation. It's an abject farce!
This is the crunch year for climate science. We've finally got the big El Nino that Hansen had been predicting almost every year from about 2005. You can explain away the plateaus, if in between you get rapid warming. But to catch up with the average model we don't just need one 1998 style El Nino, we'd need to see a series of them in close sucession. If this one doesn't result in a big , permanent step up then the upper preditions in warming look speculative at best. If the step isn't big or horror of horrors there is a balancing La Nina and we go back to hiatus temperatures then the scientists will have to start their climb down. So far NASA and the Met have 'found' enough warming by including high latitude data that was previously overlooked. The gap between satellite and land based records will prompt a scrutiny that some will find uncomfortable.
@JamesG and TinyCO2: the evidence is clear - Sagan's aerosol optical physics is wrong, and the sign of the AIE is reversed. Hence instead of Global Dimming, it was Global Brightening. However, the agglomeration of aerosols over Asia has altered the way clouds thermalise atmospheric absorbed SW energy, so it's not completely clear cut.
Nevertheless, the 1998 El Nino was an enormous burp of energy to Space following perhaps 15 years of rapid Pacific warming. The evidence is not yet in but the US agencies reporting this year's El Nino, are predicting lower peak SST temperature even though the underlying data may have been massaged to maximise the scare story. Their underlying problem is that a lot of the heat went by Kelvin Waves up the US/Canadian Pacific coast and has dissipated by extra ice melt, and is now heading to Space in cloud-free regions as they freeze.
If data doesn't support the cause, it will be tortured until it does.
There seems to be a bit of a panic rush to tweak data to prove tnere is any global warming consistent with the settled science consensus.
It should be very unsettling for advocates of settled science to have no proof or evidence, but they have had 20 years to acclimatise to the significant lack of change, so climate scientists find nothing unnatural to report on.
Such a complete failure of the Royal Society to spot errors is unprecedented.
Look at the picture in geological time scales.
According to Greenland and other Ice Core data our Holocene Interglacial is now in decline.
The current, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000+ years. It’s congenial climate spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.
But:
1 the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene interglacial.
2 each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), has been progressively colder than the previous high point.
3 for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had almost flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.05 °C per millennium.
4 but the recent Holocene, since the “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 10 times that earlier rate at more than 0.5 °C per millennium.
5 the Holocene interglacial is about 11,000 years old and judging by earlier Interglacials the epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
6 any beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point that has been promoted as the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare” will soon come to be seen as noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
Global warming protagonists should accept that our interglacial has been in long-term decline for the last 3000 years and that any action taken by man-kind is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever.
Were the actions by Man-kind able to avert warming they would eventually reinforce the catastrophic cooling that is bound to return relatively soon.
see
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/data
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
John Silver
If today is exceptionally hot and tomorrow is exceptionally cold then nobody would call it climate change, so duration is a factor. I think that if we were able to measure average global temperature accurately (HA HA) then if there were a steady rise in temp over 300 - 500 years of say 1degC then you might call that climate change. However ultimately it is only when you look backwards at temp history that you can really say what happened.
I totally agree with the post by edmh.
Funny to read the second paper in the journal by climate hysterics Grant Foster (Tamino) and John Abraham which doggedly asserts that the hiatus is just imaginary and that the other climate scientists in the journal are just too stupid to realise it. Readers will no doubt notice that even if you eliminate the reduction in the rate of warming by such bogus jiggery-pokery then you still have to deal with the total lack of any increase in any warming - as models predicted - and you are therefore still left with both an unalarming long term trend and a model discrepancy
Not to worry though, Schmidt et al at the end of the journal attempt to exonerate the models by illegally applying frequentist stats to non-random, pre-selected model outputs and end up arguing that bigger error bars lead to better models.
Everyone is battling for their own pathetic, contradictory excuse to be accepted as the best of breed. How does a so--called consensus manage to contradict itself so much and still be regarded as useful for policy?
@golf charlie: the RS isn't even the Academy of Laputa. It has become the centre of our Lysenkoism.
Every 'rebuttal' paper / study is merely a separate opinion from actual observed satellite data. Their slice n dice opinions cannot and do not alter the observed evidence!
Whatever Karl et al and others choose to do with their data doesn't alter the fact that satellites have been measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, the very place where 'global warming caused by greenhouse gasses' is supposed to be occurring, and those measurements show that the atmosphere has seen NO warming for over 18 years and nothing statistically significant for over 20 years.
The pause is real and is killing the credibility of AGW theory and alarmists absolutely hate it, hence their concerted effort via 60-odd papers to discredit the pause.
It's really that simple.
Seeing as the error bars around the models haven't shortened in the last 30 years the consensus science is that the uncertainties are not due to computational limits.
Computers are better now than a ZX Spectrum even if the Climate Models aren't.
So the uncertainties must be due to:
A) our understanding of the natural processes.
And
B) our measurements.
As we get better measurements (ARGO buoys, more satellites etc) the uncertainties should decrease.
But the error bars don't - and can't - decrease without taking the models further away from reality.
Therefore, the models reflect a poor understanding of the natural processes. Bad news for the "experts".
If you are an "expert" who it is becoming increasingly clear knows no more than an amateur... well, anything goes, right?
You've got to adjust something to make your status meaningful.
Leading on from the execrable Tamino/Abraham paper it's clear you can disagree with everyone in climate science (and get your rubbish published despite a total lack of credentials) and yet still be part of the planet-saving consensus as long as you are still pessimistic.
But even if you agree that manmade warming likely exists but is more likely to be at the low end of the range, entirely consistent with the IPCC (per Lilley, Ridley, Lindzen, Curry), you are not part of the consensus and must be shunned due to the fatal error of being optimistic and hence immoral.
Lukewarmers take heed; there is no possible rapprochement with such lunacy!
The short list for contenders in the Improbably Plausible Pause Causes gets longer. Is it on the agenda for discussion in Paris, or is there an ungentlemanly agreement not to wash dirty white elephants in public rooms?
golf charlie, if you don't wash them they become "invisible" 800-pound gorillas, not white elephants (I suppose they could be white 800-pound gorillas -- but that would be racism, wudnit). Anyway, "it's worse than we thought"--aiee!--which is all that matters in la-la land. This is all going to end in mass primal-scream therapy (note the aforementioned "aiee!").
Ok, Dung. So climate is 400 years of weather.
Is that official?
Just a quick question , what is the consensus on 'the hiatus in global warming' , only it seems to depended on the flavour of the alarmist as to if admit one exist or not ?
Never in the field of human endeavour has much been unknown about that which claimed to be 'settled'
John Silver
You seem to be more interested in slagging me off than anything else, what did I do to deserve that? ^.^
The so called experts seem to be unsure of the difference between weather and global warming so why pick on me hehe?
knr, for what it's worth, I think the consensus is that they're not really sure whether there is a consensus or not. The whole exercise is a perfect demonstration of doublethink. Once they've completed discussing every possible[*] explanation for something they don't want to admit actually exists, they will be in a position to later pick one of them and claim they knew all along.
[* That is, every possible explanation except "We haven't really got a clue and are talking from where the sun don't shine. The main thing is to not publicly admit how bad our predictions were.”]
I apologize Dung, I just thought you knew something I don't.
The definition of "climate" seems to be Top Secret, maybe I should ask James Bond.
knr, the science was definitely settled, so many years ago, that no one can remember who was there, when it was, or even where. Only evil deniers in the pay of big oil, could possibly demand corroboration of one of the most fundamental principles of climate science, as this implies a lack of faith.
Without faith in climate science, what would be the point in 40, 000 people flying to Paris, at the rest of the world's expense, to prevent people in developing countries living long enough to see any grandchildren?
Climate scientists have given up explaining the cause of the pause, so now they have to concentrate on pretending there is no hiatus either, and hope nobody notices that more coal is required to keep the gravy train powered up, and on track, until its next service, COP 22, scheduled for Morocco, which can't afford it either, without massive donations from the rest of the World.
John Silver
No problem mate ^.^
It is almost certain that temperatures rise when a new Bond film is launched hehe
In the run up to to Paris, I expect one of those knowledgeable climate experts at the BBC, has prepared a briefing note for Politicians and other BBC staff, explaining what the consensus is, and why it is so important in climate science, as opposed to astrology.
The consensus view on Father Christmas, is another eagerly awaited fact-packed BBC Science special.
John Silver: There is a definition of climate: "The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. a region or area characterized by a given climate." The IPCC says it's 30 years.
However I've taken this up with Dr. Betts, I don't put things well and so am invariably misunderstood. There are six climate zones defined, Polar, Temperate, Mediterranean, Arid, Snow and Equatorial. If you go to the Met Office site they explain them, but the striking thing is that they aren't evenly placed throughout the world. Back to Dr. Betts who I asked if we were still in a temperate climate, he went into defensive mode and asked me "Who said it wasn't". Well nobody had said it wasn't I asked because (a) our climate certainly hasn't changed, and (b) I wanted to understand what climate zone the UK would change to if we continued to warm.
The WMO have their take on "What is Climate?"
The 30 year "classical period" appears to be an attempt to fix " Climate Normals"
The WMO helped set up the IPCC and so it does not surprise me that they want the definition to be a short period, however I am a nobody when it comes to defining climate obviously.
I think we have a situation in which a word in common usage actually has two meanings and if you are discussing the Earth's climate history then 30 years in neither here nor there ^.^
Minor reference spelling correction
for illustrated detail see:
http://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
Dung, climate science consists of double meanings and double standards. Unless us mere mortals understand these fundamentals, we can never define the imperfections of our current climate, to determine its inadequacies against the unspecified optimum, that we should all be striving to achieve.
Climate experts have decided, using the principle of simplest roundest numbers, that +2 degrees is terrible, safe in the knowledge that they have no proof that this is remotely probable, but equally, no one has any evidence to prove anything else.
It is therefore 100% certain that 97% of climate scientists are gambling on the percentages until they retire.
Since we are heading inevitably to an ice age, probably via a series of little ice ages, should we not have a symmetrical temperature limit and once temperature falls, we should burn more fossil fuels to meet that lower requirement?
Cracked bell time methinks!
Oct 27, 2015 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo
/////
I frequently point this out. There has been no climate change this past century. No country has yet changed its Koppen (or equivalent) categorization.
Climate is misunderstood. First, Climate is regional, not global, and change is felt on a regional basis, not on a global basis. On a global scale there are only 3 regimes, namely glacial, or ice free/nearly ice free, and inter-glacial.
Second, Climate is consists of a range of parameters, temperature being just one of many parameters. Materially, each and everyone of these parameters is constantly varying, never in stasis, and each parameter may inter act with each other. Since these parameters are constantly changing (within the bounds of natural variability for the climate zone in question), change in and of itself is not Climate change, nor even evidence of Climate change. That (change) is simply what Climate is. It is only when one or more parameters has evolved beyond the upper or lower bound of natural variability for the zone in question and has remained outside that bound for a significant period is there evidence of Climate change, and depending upon the extent to which the bound has been exceeded, and the length of time involved, actual Climate change.
This begs the question raised above, over what period does one assess the bounds of natural variability? The suggestion that it should be measured over a 30 year period, is not based upon science, and is a period simply plucked out of the air. Given that we are aware of ocean cycles running 60 or so years, it would seem to be very silly to use a period less than that. Personally, I consider that Climate should be assessed on a multi-centenial basis.
Of course, the reason why the IPCC ones to look at global climate and ignore that climate is regional and each region will experience the effects of change in different ways is that world governance could not be achieved if one were to look upon matters regionally. On a regional basis it will be seen that some parts of the globe appear to be warming, others appear to be cooling, and others appear to be undergoing little significant change. Further some parts of the globe will greatly benefit from a warmer climate (especially if this is in the form of warmer night-time lows and shorter winter seasons), some will experience little adverse affect, and it may be a problem for some. Even sea level rise is not universally experienced because some countries have no coast line, some countries may be experiencing isostatic rebound nullifying sea level rise, some countries have sharply rising cliff like shore lines such that sea level rise is not a problem, some countries do not have major cities build on their exposed coastal regions etc.
If one were to look at the matter regionally and how impacts will be experienced regionally, suddenly self interest would arise. It would be impossible to sustain the argument that we are all in it together, we need a worldwide uniform response.
The fact that this is called global warming, or we are looking for global solutions is the biggest confirmation that this is a political issue not science led.
Further to my post above, Tonyb has been reconstructing CET. It appears that the warmest decade on record is in the 1530s/40s. Did the UK have a different climate then, I would suggest no, so that gives an indication as to how hot the UK can be and the upper bounds of natural variation. When the UK experienced the wettest year on record, or the stormiest year on record, or the driest year on record, or the snowiest year on record etc. did the UK have a different climate at the time of these happenings? Again, I would suggest that it did not, so that gives an indication of the natural bounds of rain, drought, storms etc..
A year or so back, I think it was on Channel 4, there was a very good programme on the Climate if the UK covering events that we had seen before. All events such as hottest period, coldest period, wettest, driest, stormiest, storm surge etc were all in the past. It showed the true extent of natural variability in the UK Climate. The last 5 minutes of this programme was spoilt by the homage to global warming. whilst it accepted that one could not point to any one single modern day extreme weather event being caused by global warming, because of global warming we would now see more and more of these extreme weather events.
I do not know whether that programme is on UK, but it is worth looking at since it gives a good account of the wide natural bounds of the UK's climate and it puts in perspective the backdrop against which recent extreme weather events should be seen.
The flat truth is this - if you have to look for excuses to show why your model didn't come up with the correct forecast, it doesn't matter WHAT you are trying to blame the discrepancy on, the damn model was wrong to start with. Get over it, correct the model so that it DOES project properly, but stop pretending that the model is basically correct. It isn't or it would have worked, out of the box, without external fixes.
Didn't that learned climate expert Phil Jones of CRU UEA, make some reference to queries about the pause lasting 15 years would be difficult to ignore?
When does a 'blip' become something difficult to ignore, and when does that become proof of a changed climate?
Perhaps another Agenda item for Paris, once they have decided the ideal room temperature for their fine French red wines?
Tom O, 6:01 climate scientists will take that argument as proof of man's damage to the climate, not that climate scientists can't model the climate. Climate scientists have a well established track record of never admitting a mistake, and they have to practice in advance of two weeks in Paris.
Failing to notice a century long trend is one thing.
It takes a higher order of hebetude not to notice the variation of that trend as its upward course continues
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/07/climate-wars-god-of-gaps.html
Richard Verney
The detail of climate may well involve far more than just temperature but the opposition defined the problem as temperature change, even though they now seek an escape route through extreme weather etc.
The opposition then defined climate change on a global basis and so discussing regional climate may be more sensible but it is not what we are arguing about.
Your three climate 'regimes' are wrong and the most often used description is hothouse, cold and interglacial and of these three hothouse is the most common at about 16 degrees C hotter than present.
Russell
I believe they have spare beds at Battersea dog's home.
Am I the only one who thinks this COP21 conference in Paris (2 weeks, 50.000 participants flying in , having a jolly time) is a little bit over the edge?
We should at least switch off the heating in their hotel rooms and venues. To spare some CO2.
Here in the UK, we will bitterly regret closing those aging but infinitely useful coal fired generating capacity - idiots have and will cause excessive death rates - through the insanity of the green agenda.
True it was back in the day, but I can distinctly and very well remember most of my Geology tutors, Glaciologists and other learned researchers and Professors intimating that the interstitial we are currently experiencing will come to an end and pretty darned soon - geologically speaking. Having said that, and with some Russian physicists and climatologists are in agreement, we are looking at the onset of a major period of cooler temperatures ala the LIA - and as NCC has hinted circa 2018 - seems to me to be a pretty good estimate IM very HO.
The models are wrong, the whole premise is BS - though there has been a mild uptick the world T's, they will not continue on this gentle up slope to ever getting warmer. We hit the peak in 98 now, the very opposite is true and this will not be mankind's finest moment unless we start to get real and BIN the political concoction of man made CO₂ and warming with its mendacious alarmist doom mongering.
Well, if Meehl concedes ignorance on what is responsible for multi decadal changes, then he has conceded ignorance on why global temperature today is warmer than it was half a century ago.
http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/anomaly.png
Athelstan, the good news is that the world is still industrialising. Chinese and Indian engineers are still being taught how to build coal and nuclear electricity-generating facilities. Some of it is having to re-invent what is being contemptuously discarded in Western nations, but the technology will not be lost forever and shall continue beyond the wind-powered horizon of the global-warming scam.
To whit, David Cameron was welcoming the Chinese interest in building us a nuclear power station. It's a bit like Margaret Thatcher inviting the Japanese to come in and teach us about car manufacturing. Sad, but true, and necessary.
Russell
"Failing to notice a century long trend is one thing.It takes a higher order of hebetude not to notice the variation of that trend as its upward course continues"
The technical difficulties in making accurate reconstructions of past climates are formidable FOR ANY PERIOD LESS THAN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS. The causes of shorter term climate change are not well understood and
consequently it is VERY difficult, if not impracticable, to predict future climate trends reliably over such short periods as a few centuries in the present state of our understanding of the totality of the climate influencing factors.
Stadial and Interstadial temperature changes several Millennia long show a saw tooth profile in the ice core temperature proxy record. These are superimposed on the major cycles of glacial and interglacial eras which have succeeded each other at 100 millennia intervals since the Mid Pleistocene revolution which occurred one million years ago. There are many finer gradations like the Roman, Medieval and 20th Century warm periods and cold eras such as the Dark Ages the Little Ice Age in the historical climate record. Although several centuries long these are but minor variations in the succession of Stadial,Interstadial Glacial and Interglacial climate cycles.
There is also considerable random variation of temperature over millennial scale time periods. Ice cores from a normalised 20 millenium section of the record of the Eemian Interglacial show a random temperature range of 3ºK (- 1.5º to +1.5º). Although in the short term of a few centuries - warmer and cooler periods similar to those historically recorded can be confidently expected- we are not currently capable of accurately predicting the timing and scale of such cycles and the projections currently being made are illusory. Ice core proxy data from Greenland ( GISP2 and NORTHGRIP ) show that, in high northern latitudes (around 75ºN,) for the last 11 millennia, each and every successive millennium has been cooler than its predecessor. It is also evident that the nadir of shorter scale cool intervals in the last four millennia has tended to be cooler than the previous ones and that the apogee of the intervening warm periods has also tended to be cooler than previous ones.
Based on geological history, the predictable evolution of the earth’s orbit,the precession of the equinox and obliquity of the ecliptic and even ignoring the possible effects of variation in solar radiation and the its effects on the magnetosphere, the geological prognosis is for continued cooling. This will lead eventually to a return to glacial conditions in what are now temperate climate zones in both hemispheres. The timing and rate of this climate evolution cannot be predicted yet with any confidence. Nevertheless, based on Eemian random temperature variation, this does not exclude the possibility of a one to two century scale warming of as much as 3ºK even while the average temperature of succeeding millennia is continuously falling. In the Eemian record there are several millennia where there were warming trends of a few centuries despite the average temperature falling in each succeeding millennium.
A century( or two or three) of warming does not constitute a "trend" of any significance when viewed in the light of the Pleistocene, or even the Holocene climate record.