This will leave a mark on all the Warmists who proclaim that the Hiatus, otherwise known as the Great Pause, was not real
(Daily Caller) A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics†or “lukewarmers†were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus†in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.
A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus†literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.
More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown†in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.
“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,†reads the abstract of Santer’s paper, which was published Monday.
“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,†reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.â€
Many Warmists did actually say there was a Pause, then would provide all sorts of excuses as to why it occurred and why this totally doesn’t mean that we’re not all doomed in the future. Usually, their excuses would involve things like it being caused by nature, which brings to mind a significant question: “if the Pause was caused by natural variation, why can’t most of the warming be due to natural variation?”
What is notable here is that they are admitting that the models are, in a simple word, crap. 95% of them were wrong. Warmists are fond of throwing out a talking point about if 97% of your doctors telling you you’re sick, why would you ignore them? Well, if 95% of your doctors were wrong, would you listen to them?
As Powerline notes “The lead author, Ben Santer, is one of the leading climatistas, so this article can’t be written off as “denier†distortions. (One of the co-authors is Michael Mann.)”
Let’s note yet again that the debate is not about warming: there was warming, it started in the mid-1900’s. The debate is on causation. If the models, based primarily on the release of carbon dioxide from the works of Man, what the Warmists un-scientifically refer to as carbon pollution, are mostly wrong, that would mean that their whole Cult of Climastrology is based on a lie.
As was repeatedly pointed out, the total heat content of the Earth increased steadily during the “Pause”, while the measured surface temperature leveled off. The shifts between the heat content of the oceans and the Earth’s surface are not fully understood but clearly occurs.
What’s your problem? What’s your point?
Perhaps you would be taken seriously if your sources were not the Daily Caller and Powerline.
TEACH typed:
Good to hear. The Earth is warming from the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere.
When the surface temperature shot up the past couple of years; where do you think the heat came from? Magic? It came from the oceans which have been warming steadily. The heat moves back and forth between the oceans and the surface atmosphere, but the overall heat content is constantly increasing.
Is that all little jeffuckery thinks about, shooting up shit?
Santer has finally realized the “climate” models were and are still wrong because the CO2 feedback effect has been vastly overstated and doesn’t match up with observations.
The scam is unraveling.
drowningpuppies: Santer has finally realized the “climate†models were and are still wrong because the CO2 feedback effect has been vastly overstated and doesn’t match up with observations.
We haven’t read the paper as yet. Is that an accurate reflection of the paper’s conclusion?
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html
Yes, we read the abstract, but your claim was that they concluded the “CO2 feedback effect has been vastly overstated”, while the quote concerns post-2000 external forcings.
So? Prove me wrong.
We have yet to read the paper, though it’s apparent you haven’t either.
1) The abstract seems to contradict your claim: “It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity.”
2) Post-2000 forcings doesn’t refer to CO2 forcing, as CO2 forcing predates 2000.
3) They paper concludes: “Although scientific discussion about the causes of short-term differences between modelled and observed warming rates is likely to continue, this discussion does not cast doubt on the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.”
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/13
drowningpuppies: The main external climate forcings experienced over the last 2,000 years are volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation reaching the Earth, and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities
That’s right. But,
1) they say that “It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity.†Climate sensitivity concerns the feedbacks due to CO2 warming.
2) Post-2000 forcings doesn’t refer to CO2 forcing, as CO2 forcing predates 2000, that is, unless you are positing that CO2 changed its physical properties post-2000.
3) The paper concerns short-term differences not long-term differences. If “the CO2 feedback effect has been vastly overstated” were the issue, then it would concern long-term differences.
So what post 2000 forcings are y’all referring to?
Did these forcings not exist prior to 2000?
Vtdrowningpuppies: So what post 2000 forcings are y’all referring to?
When making projections, scientists have to make assumptions about accumulated greenhouse gases, aerosol density, volcanic emissions, solar irradiation, and changes in albedo. What the authors found was that the differences over the last two decades were because estimates of forcings were not accurate. When substituting the actual forcings, there the models and observations reasonably agree.
Meanwhile, contrary to the claim, warming has not stopped.
Well, gee whiz kiddiez, that’s what every skeptic has been claiming all along.
THE “CLIMATE MODELS” DO NOT MATCH OBSERVATIONS/REALITY UNTIL “ALTERATIONS” ARE MADE AFTER THE FACT.
THUS,THERE IS LITTLE PREDICTIVE VALUE TO SAID “CLIMATE MODELS”.
drowningpuppies: that’s what every skeptic has been claiming all along.
The claim is that the models are wrong, not that the inputs may be somewhat off. The forcings are external to the model itself. If there is a volcanic eruption which cooled the climate that doesn’t mean the model was wrong.
That’s like saying Newton’s model of motion is wrong because the wind velocity acting on the missile was higher than expected. To test the model, you input the corrected wind velocity and see if the model matches what happened.
Uh, false equivalence, kidz.
Newton’s Laws of Motion have been proven over and over.
Climate models not so much.
TEACH: Rather than extracting quotes from the abstract, please look at Figure 1a from Santer’s paper and explain again how the models have failed. This figure has the RSS Version 4 satellite data superimposed on a composite of model runs. What they show is that between 2007 and 2014 the models overestimated the warming trend (although you can clearly see the overall trend is still spot on.
TEACH typed:
Again, look at Figure 1a.
Did you hear that the climate models are grounding planes out west because of the heat? Or that climate models killed 62 Portuguese by catching their cars on fire? Or that climate models warmed it to 127 in Death Valley?
Well actually the real story is:
All the other planes ran on schedule.
Another fail by little jeffuckery.
But we’re used to that here at the Cove.
Jeff,
Quit lying. Why do you do it? You are not convincing anyone. Do you think people here are stupid? If so, why comment? Or are you just trying to be a jerk, again, why? Go back to arranging parties for the drug companies.
dave,
As I’ve asked before, please point out my lies and we can discuss.
I plead the 5th.
I’m a cofounder of a drug company, so why would I arrange a party for another? I’ve forgotten more about drug development than you ever knew. Anyway, you’re the one who admitted to being influenced by drug companies to deliver requested results. Project much?
More lies little guy. Keep it up, you make a fool of yourself, go party.
drowningpuppies: Newton’s Laws of Motion have been proven over and over.
Actually, Newton’s laws were shown to be wrong in the 19th century.
In any case, it’s an analogous situation. You are conflating the model with the model inputs. Climate models don’t predict volcanic eruptions, but they can predict what will happen to the climate if such an event occurs.
By the way, previous volcanic eruptions have helped determine climate sensitivity. See Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
“All climate models are wrong but some can be useful.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiXnLCxitTUAhVB5YMKHUhTBngQFgg7MAg&usg=AFQjCNGJN1zPdxq96rZoi7pz4qJfGjx02Q
Lewis & Curry’s estimate of Transient Climate Response (TCR = 0.9-2.5°C) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS = 1.05-4.05°C) is close to consensus estimates. The method determines TCR. ECS is implied based on the simplifying assumption that forcings are constant. Also, they use HadCRUT4, but the dataset lacks Arctic coverage, which other studies show is warming faster than the rest of the globe.
Some can be useful.
drowningpuppies: Some can be useful.
That’s right. Lewis & Curry use a model of Earth’s energy budget to determine TCR, finding the same general range as other such studies.
Y’all sure like your graphs with lots of colors.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
dave,
Y’all have a hard time with facts. The Earth is warming just as predicted by the climate models. Over a century ago even Svante Arrhenius’s models predicted warming based on increasing atmospheric CO2. And sure enough, the Earth has been warming! It’s reasonable to assume it will continue to warm as long as the Earth is at disequilibrium – more heat is entering the system than leaving. You should realize, though, that once equilibrium is achieved, it will be at a higher mean surface temperature (at least until CO2 levels drop). And there’s precious little assurance that we’ll stop adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.
You have problems with facts versus assumptions, little jeffuckery.
Try and learn the difference and try not to shoot anyone today, m’kay?
drowningpuppies: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything “Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature dataÂsets.”
1996-present
HadCRUT4, +0.163°C/decade
GISTEMP, +0.196°C/decade
NOAA, +0.186°C/decade
UAHv5.6 TLT +0.175°C/decade
So the argument is Temps have risen as predicted?
Before or after “adjustments”?
drowningpuppies: So the argument is Temps have risen as predicted? Before or after “adjustments�
You introduced the data-sets with your citation. However, your citation misrepresented the data-sets. Most do show a statistically significant increase since 1996.
No the discussion was about the climate models being wrong and therefore basically useless at predictions.
drowningpuppies: the discussion was about the climate models being wrong and therefore basically useless at predictions.
And the citation you provided for argument that climate models are wrong was based on a misrepresentation of the data.
So you dismiss the first citation also?
Please see below.
Science deniers pretend to argue that the Earth is warming and that their only question is about causation. With their next breath they question the data that the Earth is warming.
It is a fact that the average surface temperature has increased as predicted.
His rather crude model predicted equilibrium warming (and likely overestimated the climate sensitivity to CO2, thank goodness – most modern models cluster around 3C +/- 1.5C) but certainly not a bad effort for someone 120 years ago. We don’t even think the original Macintosh had been invented yet! He did it with pencil and paper and arithmetic. He didn’t have the information we have today about positive and negative feedbacks from water vapor, aerosols, albedo, El Ninos, La Ninas, PDO, clouds and the effects of volcanoes.
There is absolutely no scientific debate that CO2 in the atmosphere leads to greater heat retention. None. There is, and will always be debates over the various positive and negative feedbacks.
Uh, yes there is, little jeffuckery, plenty.
Although you are either too lazy or too dishonest to even look it up.
Lying again Jeff.
drowningpuppies: So you dismiss the first citation also?
So you are cooking spaghetti, and want to see which one sticks? We mentioned it elsewhere, but it is worth repeating. Do you ever view your own positions skeptically, or do you only look for authors who agree with you, no matter how removed from the science?
Take a look at this chart from NOAA. They certainly see the models as a reasonable fit.
Now, take a look at this diagram from Michaels & Knappenberger, Model and Observed Global Surface Temperature Trends, a chart of the trend, not temperature. They take it as evidence against model fit, when actually it shows that the longer the period under consideration, the *closer* the fit. This is the expected result.
Now, let’s take a look at near surface temperatures, Global annual mean near surface temperature. The chart ends before the recent record-breaking years. The observed temperature trend is well-within the expected margin.
Nice try. More graphs with colors.
drowningpuppies: More graphs with colors.
Are you saying the graphs don’t properly represent the data? The first graph is admittedly schematic, though the source is authoritative. The second graph, by Michaels & Knappenberger, is hard to evaluate as they don’t provide their precise methodology, but the third graph is well-documented.
Nope. The data is suspect.
https://americaswatchtower.com/2017/02/21/noaa-lost-global-warming-data-when-the-agencys-computer-crashed/
drowningpuppies: https://americaswatchtower.com/2017/02/21/noaa-lost-global-warming-data-when-the-agencys-computer-crashed/
That’s funny. You rely upon a single third-hand account reporting on an article by David Rose, who misrepresents the claims of John Bates. Did you research Bates’s claims? His response to the controversy? Did you try to look at your own view skeptically, or did you just echo what you heard in the echochamber?
Bates: there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
drowningpuppies: The data is suspect.
By the way, the Karl study has nothing to do with the data in the temperature graph above, which is based on HadCRUT4.
And, as pointed out to you previously, other studies have reinforced the findings of Karl 2015. See Hausfather et al., Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records, Science Advances 2017.
So to review, you point to an article that points to an article that points to misrepresentations of claims made by John Bates, formerly of NOAA. On the other hand, we cited multiple scientific studies published in major scientific journals.
On the other hand, we cited multiple scientific studies published in major scientific journals.
Another appeal to authority, kidz.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/22/some-fun-with-ipcc-texts/
drowningpuppies: Another appeal to authority
No. It’s an appeal to scientific evidence. However, in terms of authority, scientific studies published in scientific journals are certainly more authoritative than an irrelevant third-hand account of a misrepresentation of what a retired NOAA official said.
Let us know if you ever want to discuss the scientific evidence.
Mann’s Hockey Stick was considered a scientific study published in a scientific journal.
drowningpuppies: Mann’s Hockey Stick was considered a scientific study published in a scientific journal.
That’s right, and while publication doesn’t mean the study is necessarily correct, it does constitute stronger evidence than saying “Is not!” even if you say it very loudly. Meanwhile, Mann’s basic findings have been supported by many other studies, including a report by the National Research Council Report, and more recently by the Pages 2K Consortium study, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013.
Notably, you’ve added nothing substantive since your citation to an irrelevant third-hand report misrepresenting statements by a retired NOAA official.
Except the IPCC.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/ipcc-throws-manns-hockey-stick-under-the-bus/
Except that’s not what the IPCC said. They said “the period 1983–2012 was … likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).†Since then, the global temperature anomaly has set multiple records. Here is the ranking:
1 2016 0.94 °C
2 2015 0.90
3 2014 0.74
4 2010 0.70
5 2013 0.67
Do you have argument that doesn’t depend on a misrepresentation?
Here’s a few different proxies studies for the Northern Hemisphere. Compare the highest temperatures in the proxy record with current warming.
the temperatures produced by GCMs are presented as anomalies in the IPCC reports so their disagreement with each other and with the real world are hidden.
Should we apply bias correction to global
and regional climate model data? Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences 16: 3391–3404.
Ehret, U., Zehe, E., Wulfmeyer, V., Warrach-Sagi, K., and
Liebert, J. 2012.
drowningpuppies: “the temperatures produced by GCMs are presented as anomalies in the IPCC reports so their disagreement with each other and with the real world are hidden.”
That sentence is not found in Ehret et al.
The problem of bias correction does not impact the overall finding of global warming, which is supported by basic physics and direct observation.
The problem of bias correction, however, is important in determining regional impacts of anthropogenic climate change, and is often a practical necessity in down-scaled models. Solutions include using higher resolution simulations, while newer methods maintain physical consistency and result in improved fit. See Sippel et al., A novel bias correction methodology for climate impact simulations, Earth Systems Dynamics 2016. Neural nets have also shown some promise in this regard.
There will always be some uncertainty in models of complex systems because of finite resolution. However, when multiple runs with variations of the initial data converge, then it lends confidence in the result, given appropriate error bars.
The concerns of Ehret et al. are a minority position, but as already in noted, they have been addressed by other researchers.
By the way, medium confidence means more likely than not.
Maybe and maybe not.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
http://www.powerforusa.com/2017/06/23/why-the-ipcc-models-are-wrong/
From you link: “It should be a simple matter to determine whether actual temperatures at these latitudes and heights prove or disprove the model’s predictions.”
False. It’s not a simple matter. Satellites don’t measure temperature, but radiation; and balloon measurements are problematic because they are not stationary. Sources of data have to be adjusted to account for these and other problems. Due to the high error margins on historical data, previous studies have not been able to rule in or rule out the tropical tropospheric hotspot.
Newer research supports the existence of the tropical tropospheric hotspot. See Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), Environmental Research Letters.
drowningpuppies: Maybe and maybe not.
Not sure what you are trying to argue. From the linked article:
“The most important finding is a warming of the globe since the late nineteenth century of 0.45 ± 0.15°C, supported by a worldwide recession of mountain glaciers… A quite similar warming has occurred over both land and oceans.”