Climate Change News

Tracking the Missing Heat from the Global Warming Hiatus

Despite indications that the Pacific Ocean is helping to take up the world's missing surface heat, the heat doesn't linger; oceanographers now find that heat has moved over to the Indian Ocean.

By

At the end of the 20th century, climate scientists noticed what they thought at first was an anomaly: a slowdown in the pace of global warming in the lower atmosphere. Today it is a recognized trend that has lasted more than 15 years. Perplexed, oceanographers are on a hunt to find where this missing heat has gone.

In the latest report out of Nature Geoscience this week, University of Miami physical oceanographer Sang-Ki Lee and colleagues may have found some of this missing heat: The Pacific Ocean is keeping its cool by sending heat over to the Indian Ocean. This heat redistribution, the researchers say, could play a role in regulating the rate of global warming.

Oceans: A Complex Buffer

Why the global warming hiatus has happened and how long it will last are mysteries. However, scientists do know that the ocean has recently helped to buffer what was otherwise an accelerated surface warming, one that has not yet stopped. Warming in the upper atmosphere continues to show that the planet is undergoing a radiation imbalance.

However, rather than showing any signs of storing heat, as is the case in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean has actually cooled over the past decade.

“When I noticed from the hydrographic data that the Pacific Ocean heat content has been decreasing since 2003 or so, I was very surprised and puzzled,” Lee told Eos. “And when I found a large heat increase in the Indian Ocean, I was almost convinced that there was something wrong with the hydrographic data.”

How Does Heat Escape to the Indian Ocean?

Lee ran a computer model simulation and found that he could explain the difference if a massive amount of heat from the Pacific flowed through Indonesia’s archipelago into the Indian Ocean. However, how best to move the heat?

Warm water, like warm air, rises—or, rather, stays at the surface when nothing else is disturbing it. This is why, in a lake, the upper layer is warmer than the bottom layer.

To get warm surface water from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean requires wind—and not just any wind. The trade winds need to be strong enough to push water from the eastern Pacific all the way across the ocean basin to the west, where it piles up and creates a region of above-average sea surface height.

Warm surface water can then flow like a river down around the Indonesian archipelago to the Indian Ocean. A difference in height of less than a dozen centimeters is enough to get the heat moving.

The Role of La Niña

Often, the trade winds over the Pacific come up against westerly winds from over the Indian Ocean. During El Niño events, these westerly winds are stronger than the trade winds, and the two will converge in the middle of the Pacific. However, during La Niña events, the westerly winds are extremely weak, and the result is a lower than average sea surface height in the Indian Ocean.

When Lee and his colleagues looked at the temperature observations between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, warming episodes in the latter matched the pattern of the more frequent La Niña events that have occurred over the years.

“We were all very excited to find a good match between the model simulation and the direct measurements,” Lee said. The observations show that “ocean heat transport plays a vital role in redistributing the global energy imbalance,” he added.

Can the Indian Ocean House All of this Hidden Heat?

Lee admits his work is looking at only part of the puzzle—that of the surface heat transport to the Indian Ocean.

Last year, other oceanographers put the focus on deeper water layers in the Atlantic Ocean, dismissing the Indian Ocean’s role during this hiatus period. Ka Kit Tung of the University of Washington told Eos that in the journal Sciencewe reported…that the Indian Ocean is the only ocean that warmed at the surface and in its upper layers, but it is a minor player in terms of the heat uptake that is needed.”

“The upper 700 meters of the heat content increase in the Indian Ocean, and, for that matter, in the global ocean, is not enough to explain the near-zero trends in the surface temperature and upper 200 meters’ ocean heat content. The key is the heat storage between 200 and 1500 meters of the oceans, which is about 70 zettajoules during the hiatus period,” Tung explained. For comparison, the global energy consumption per year is 0.5 zettajoule.

The paper by Lee and his team is “a useful contribution concerning the recent cause of the warming in the upper 700 meters of the Indian Ocean,” Tung added.

“It is not a budget calculation,” he explained. “There is a difference between finding some warming in the Indian Ocean and justifying the proposition that the amount of heat storage explains what is needed to account for the global hiatus. [We] not only calculated the heat storage in the Indian Ocean in the upper 700 meters but…calculated it down to 1500 meters and showed that it was not enough.”

An Important Piece of the Puzzle

Despite heat budget complexities, some oceanographers find the new results intriguing.

“The report finds that the interbasin heat transport carried by ocean currents may hold the key to deciphering the unsolved missing heat,” said Lisan Yu of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

“Although the study did not explain what drives La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific, it identifies a potentially important pathway of heat redistribution and provides valuable insight [into] the role of ocean currents in the global warming hiatus,” she explained. “The study adds further evidence that the oceans are key to explaining the climate anomalies.”

For Jérôme Vialard of the Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN) in Paris, France, the search for the missing heat is the first step in addressing a broader issue. “The key question is now to understand if this heat will soon be released back to the atmosphere,” he said. In such a case, “the ‘hiatus’ of the last 10 years will be compensated by accelerated surface global warming over the next decade.”

—Christina Reed, Freelance Writer

Citation: Reed, C. (2015), Tracking the missing heat from the global warming hiatus, Eos, 96, doi:10.1029/2015EO029947. Published on 21 May 2015.

© 2015. The authors. CC BY-NC 3.0
  • Sarastro92

    The NULL hypothesis. When will the “consensus” have the courage to halt the quixotic quest to find the “missing heat”, re-examine the climate “budget” and admit that the basic calculations are wrong and rely on flawed applications of physics and atmospheric chemistry?

  • MM Ali

    A good Article. Then what does it mean? The Indian Ocean will continue warming up?

  • climatehawk1

    Too bad the headline uses “hiatus.” Helps deniers. It is a slowdown at most.

    • drloko

      To be fair ‘hiatus’ is the term typically used when discussing the post-1998 temperature record. I don’t think this author is misleading in using the term.

      • climatehawk1

        Not misleading, I agree. I’m a retired communications professional. The denier meme is that warming has stopped, and it hasn’t. “Slowdown” is more accurate and doesn’t lend credence to that deliberately misleading meme.

  • Nanker Phelge

    We’re in the last car of an old school gravity rollercoaster. The last car, being behind the center of inertia, experiences delayed accelerations, so it often accelerates counter-intuitively; going into a climb, and decelerates going into a drop, if the hills are steep and close. The so-called hiatus is the center of inertia going over the hill into the last fatal drop. Soon our car will accelerate uphill, then go flying over the peak at full spead, throwing us out of the rollercoaster. Buckle up.

    • Art Vandalay

      In that last car, if we look up at the sun with our welder glasses we can see very few sunspots. Contrary to NASA predictions, the data show this Solar Cycle will be the quietest in 100 years. Excuse me while I go out and cover my plants so they don’t freeze this Memorial Day weekend. Bundle up.

    • allbuss84

      Translation:
      The models predicting the apocalypse have been wrong in the past, but next time they will be right! You just wait and see!!!

    • GogogoStopSTOP

      Which one of the IPCC’s models contains these assumptions? “Next theory please.”

  • Helmut Z. Baumert

    Good article. Urgent issue, we need to understand this hiatus phenomenon because everybody talks about global warming, the corresponding flows of energies and $$$.
    Horizontal heat advection is ONE highly probable candidate mechanism. Another might be vertical mixing across the (inner) surface of the whole world ocean at a certain depth, e.g. through the annual pycnocline. Stronger winds and storms, which are usually connected with global warming, excite increased internal-wave activity at this pycnocline resulting in increased mixing via (internal) wave turbulence.
    Unfortunately, we do not yet fully understand wave turbulence, remaining still a math challenge. It’s so much different from shear generated and convective turbulence that it really deserves more efforts than a Saturday afternoon tea …

    • GogogoStopSTOP

      Crazy idea. “Next theory please.”

      • klem

        Exactly, weren’t we told once that the science is settled?

        • Helmut Z. Baumert

          The (physical) science is clearly NOT settled. Remember that until recently the turbulence problem still notoriously lingered around as one of the last unsolved problems of classical physics with many empirical workarounds? Note that it touches the ocean as well as the atmosphere! That even Landau wrote about Karman’s constant (one of the universal constants of turbulent motions at high Reynolds numbers) can only be MEASURED, not computed?
          This case is solved now for the simple non-stratified case, but not for the more general stratified turbulence in the presence of remotely generated internal waves like in real-world oceans where internal gravity waves travel over long distances with only small damping. Much in the today’s global models is tuned to (rare and challenging) observations and solid grounds are often lacking. That’s why I also have many doubts in global models. However, we have no other chance then doing better classical research to clearly prove their underlying assumptions as wrong or true. And the internal-wave turbulence mentioned in my last posting is either not even mentioned in the models and if, it is treated in a sloppy empirical form.

  • CHEMST

    Am I the only one thinking “Are we now debating alternate theories to explain where the non-observed heating predicted by a model has gone?

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    Richard P. Feynman

    Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf160383.html#zki7ocZFGcowHYBE.99

    • allbuss84

      Just one of nearly 60 theories about why the atmosphere is not warming as it *should*

      • Don

        And yet observed warming matches model projections remarkably well…

        • drloko

          The majority of climate models that attempted to predict future temperatures have been rejected at the 95% level at this point. There is little doubt that the post-1998 era has experienced a significant slowdown in that rate of warming. This is acknowledged and discussed in the latest IPCC report.

          • Don

            That’s simply false. Observed warming falls well within model projections. IIRC it’s Dr. Roy Spencer who made that claim, Spencer is a noted contrarian scientist who does not have any relevant expertise in climate modelling (he is an expert in remote sensing). You will notice that if you examine the chart Spencer posted on his personal blog (not in an actual peer reviewed paper of course, for reasons that will become obvious in a moment) you will notice that he used a very odd 5 year baseline (1979-1983) instead of the standard 30 year climatological baseline for the satellite era (1981-2010). Why would spencer do this? Simple, when you use the proper baseline the data sets that show the lowest consistent average temperatures (RSS and UAH because satellite temperature records are NOT surface temperatures but lower troposphere integrations) it appears as if they lie below the CMIP5 model means (note that Spencer has only plotted the means, NOT the 95% confidence intervals).

            What does this mean? Nothing. Spencer took the highest CMIP model means and plotted them against the temperature records using a cherry picked baseline to shift the model means up while shifting the observations down in order to give the appearance of a mismatch between models and data; however single model means alone are never used to compare with observations, ensemble means AND their confidence intervals are. The claim that model projections do not encompass temperature observations as made on Dr. Roy Spencer’s personal blog and repeated elsewhere is false, and robust statistical comparisons of models and observations that actually are published in the scientific literature (e.g. Rahmstorf et al. 2012) show strong agreement between GCM ensembles and temperature observations.

            • drloko

              I don’t think you are completely accurate in that analysis. There are several authors who have conducted this analysis, and it’s fairly straightforward based on the literature. The analysis is not as simple as examining model means and comparing them to actual results. In fact, the original literature on each of these models typically contains a number of projections under a variety of conditions, and each of those is reported as ranges under different confidence intervals.

              When the reviewers state the models are rejected at 95% levels, it is incorporating the time-dependent upper-lower bound for the projection. These models are at this point statistically rejected. There is little argument over this point.

              The models in question here are models circa 2000 and prior. These are the only models where enough temporal data has been collected to make a significant assessment of the results. Later models may in fact be more accurate, but we simply do not have enough data collected yet to make a determination.

              • Don

                You would be incorrect. The original post can be found here:

                drroyspencer. com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

                There are no “reviewers” making the claim that models are rejected at the 95% level because:

                1) that claim has not been published in any refereed scientific paper

                and

                2) models are not validated in that manner.

                You are correct in suggesting. model validation is complex, but it is far more complex then you indicate, and the process is far more robust then rudimentary hypothesis testing using Gaussian confidence intervals. See chapter 8 in the 2007 IPCC report for a comprehensive primer on climate model validation (remove the spaces)

                ipcc. ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8. html

                You can easily verify my previous statements about the misleading nature of Spencers graphic which serves as the basis for his claim. The graphic Spencer produced is labelled with the cherry picked baseline, and it is both obvious and explicitly showing model means (instead of ensemble means) with no confidence intervals. overlain with the hadley and UAH data sets which appear lower than the model means because of

                1) cherry picking of the mean runs (there have been far more than 90 CIMP runs)

                and

                2) The use of a climatologically invalid baseline

                Your suggestion that the 90 means Spencer plotted represent the only runs where “enough temporal data has been collected to make a significant assessment of the results ” is simply not true. The CMIP program involves over 20 independent modelling groups using several dozen different GCM’s. Each single experiment is comprised of a minimum of 8 time period specific runs (including controls, and specific time frames for comparison). Each of those 8 sub-runs is comprised of dozens to hundreds (in some cases thousands) of individual model runs which are used to populate model ensembles. And that’s for each phase of the CMIP program, which is now in CMIP5. This of course not even considering the paleo-modelling projects (PMIP) and all the available model runs. 90 run means is a drop in an Olympic sized swimming pool of possible runs to draw from; and there is no excuse for using means instead of ranges based on ensemble confidence intervals.

                You can check actual scientific papers that correctly compare model ensembles and their confidence intervals with observations as well as adjusting for volcanic and ENSO forcing. For example, see Rahmstorf et al 2012 in ERL, it is available for free here: (remove spaces)

                iopscience. iop. org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

                • drloko

                  There are several papers that have been published that come to this conclusion. You can choose to ignore the body of literature on the subject, but that won’t make it go away.

                  The OP is about temperature modeling. I see you are now trying to change the subject by point to sea-level modeling. It’s a different topic.

                • Don

                  By all means, cite those peer-reviewed papers that show contemporary climate models do not capture global average temperature trends. If I am incorrect I am happy to be shown otherwise, but the only papers I have read that show Models are not capturing climate trends properly are those showing the observed decrease in sea ice occurring much more rapidly than models project, and those showing observed sea level rise occurring much more rapidly than models project (which suggests to me the models are conservative). As far as Average surface temperatures I have not seen a scientific article that found observations to be outside of the confidence bounds of modern GCM ensembles of proper emission scenarios.

                • drloko

                  You can read this in ar5, there is an analysis there. In addition they have numerous works cited that should provide the evidence you need.

                • Don

                  I have read AR5 and no such papers are cited. Provide the author(s), year of publication and journal. Even just one would be fine. Please and Thank you.

                • drloko

                  It’s discussed in detail in Chapter 9.
                  You apparently meet scientific debate with demeaning comments. Very sad.

                • Don

                  And you apparently cannot cite a single scientific paper that shows modern GCMs failing to capture globally averaged surface temperature variability.
                  By the by, empathy is not demeaning.

                • drloko

                  I just gave you a cite, and it is the one most detailed cites on the subject.

                • Don

                  [Author, year of publication, scientific journal]

                  the IPCC reports are excellent agglomerative reviews of the peer reviewed literature, but they are not the individual peer reviewed papers themselves.

                  I must assume then that no such paper exists, as you are just dodging at this point. Here, Here is a great paper that shows how accurate GCMs are when projecting global average surface temperature:

                  Rahmstorf et al. 2012, ERL

                  See, it’s not so hard. Now you cite one that suggests the opposite!

                • drloko

                  Here’s the full cite:

                  Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers” see Ch. 9.

                • Don

                  That’s not a peer reviewed article. Try again.

                • drloko

                  AR5 is not peer reviewed?
                  There were 800 reviewers for this publication.

                • Don

                  Is a forest a tree? No the report is a great SECONDARY resource, but it is not a primary source peer reviewed paper. You should have no trouble citing a single paper that supports your claim.. unless of course *gasp* one doesn’t exist.

                • drloko

                  Already cited it but here it is again:

                  Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers” see Ch. 9.

                  I’m sorry you don’t feel that 800 experts reviewing this doesn’t add up to ‘peer-review’. We simply disagree on what peer-review means.

                • Don

                  Peer Review (from Merriam Webster)

                  a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field

                  IPC reports are reviewed by non-experts and politicians as well as expert scientists. They are secondary sources and are synthesis documents, not primary peer reviewed literature. That isn’t to say they are not very valuable documents and have a very important function and utility (they absolutely are and do!).

                  It’s ok, we can see that you don’t know what actual scientific papers support your idea that GCM’s not adequately capturing observed global warming… because they simply don’t exist. Keep crying IPCC though, it’s sure to make someone want to buy what you’re trying to sell.

                • drloko

                  You don’t believe that AR5 was reviewed by climate experts?

                • Don

                  All IPCC reports are subjected to comment from government official, politicians, and very many non-experts. This is a line by line process where politicians may demand changes to the wording and content of the document. The reports indeed undergo review, but not peer review.

                  IPCC process is detailed here (remove spaces):
                  ipcc. ch/organization/organization_review. shtml

                • drloko

                  Yes, and reading that it explicitly states that AR5 was reviewed and approved by experts in the field.

                • Don

                  Dissertations and thesis are also reviewed and approved by experts in the field; they are not considered refereed. If experts were the only ones with a say over the IPCC I might agree with you a little bit, but that isn’t the case.

                • drloko

                  So you dismiss IPCC AR5, but you consider pay-to-publish journals credible?

                • Don

                  The primary peer reviewed literature (found exclusively in refereed scientific journals) is the state and content of science. Derivative and synthetic works (e.g. the IPCC reports, academic books and textbook, etc.) are useful resources and secondary references, however the peer reviewed literature and it’s progress over time is in every sense of the word the body of science. There are a wide variety of business models for academic journals, some are open source, others are subscription based, etc. Reading the academic literature in any field without discerning legitimate journals from scams goes with out say, and the true scientific processes does not end with publication; as ideas and concepts are then tested by others in your field until the ones that truly work are solidified and those that do not are discarded.

                  Since you seem happy to put words in my mouth I’ll make it very clear: I DO NOT reject the IPCC reports; I accept them for what they are; extremely conservative synthesis reports derivative of the primary scientific literature. Useful for many things, but not to be considered above the primary literature they are derivative of.

                • drloko

                  So the IPCC report is valid when you agree with it but invalid when you don’t?

                  But you consider pay-to-publish journals as reliable sources?

                • Don

                  The IPCC reports are neither valid nor invalid; they are conservative syntheses.

                  I haven’t the slightest clue what you refer to as pay-to-publish journals. I assume you mean open source journals? There are many journals that do not follow the open source model, including the ones most frequently published in by climate scientists (the AGU journals for example, Nature and NPG journals, etc). Again, I have to wonder why you are trying to argue about red herrings such as whether the IPCC reports are true peer reviewed documents and open source journals rather than science.

                • drloko

                  Several of articles you cite are from pay-to-publish journals. I am trying to understand how you refuse to accept the findings of IPCC AR5 which is reviewed by hundreds of climate scientists over several years, but accept claims made in pay-to-publish journals that have a vested interest in publishing articles regardless of quality and reviewed by a much smaller group over 90 days.

                • Don

                  Again, pay-to-publish is not a modus of legitimate academic publication. I assume you are using the term as a derogatory remark for open access journals which allow anyone to view the published paper with out the reader having to pay for it. This removes the “pay wall” that has been a major problem for researchers in developing countries and for the general public to have access to scientific papers. Most U.S. science agencies now require research they fund to be published as open source. However no reputable open source journal is “pay-to-publish”, all of the legitimate academic journals that have open source options only require payment once a paper is accepted by reviewers as well as the editor.

                  I assume you are referring to the journal Environmental Research Letters, which uses an open source system. This journal is run by the publishing group of the Institute of Physics, which publishes over 70 peer reviewed journals. The IOP is among the most reputable scientific publishing groups in the world, so if you are insinuating misconduct you have an uphill battle.

                • drloko

                  Open access is different than pay-to-publish. You are linking pay-to-publish, and now you state hat those are not “a modus of legislate academic publication”.

                  But the IPCC AR5 report is not trustworthy enough for you.

                • Don

                  Perhaps I misunderstand you, which academic journal that I linked to is “pay-to-publish”?

                • odin2

                  On the performance of the climate models when their projections are compared to actual observed temperatures for the past 20 years (note Fig. 3):

                  http://climatesense-norpag[dot]blo

                  On global atmospheric temperatures over the past 18+ years:

                  https://bobtisdale.files[dot]wordp

                  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2001 Assessment Report admitted:

                  “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”

                  Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
                  Third Assessment Report (2001). Section 14.2.2.2, page 774.

                  On the failure of the climate models to deal with a linked chaotic system like the atmosphere by Dr. Essex:

                  http://wattsupwiththat[dot]com/201

                • Don

                  Almost every link you’ve provided is to non-refereed claims on personal blogs. The only claim that you cited from a reasonable secondary scientific source was your claim about models from the now 14 year old 2001 IPCC assessment; however your quote is cherry picked and taken out of context. It is misleading at best and false at worst. You seem to have conveniently left out the rest of that paragraph, here is what follows from the IPCC’s 3rd assessment, which can be found here (remove spaces)

                  ipcc. ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505. htm

                  :

                  “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

                  The misunderstanding probably stems from the fact that you mistakenly believe climate models “predict” anything; GCMs are research tools that can be used to make testable PROJECTIONS (read: not predictions) based on potential emission and forcing scenarios. This is a subtle, but important distinction, one that the climate science community is and has always been careful to make; but anti-science and contrarian voices have (through ignorance or intentional deceit) been keen to conflate. I suggest you try sources of information that are much more recent as well, as science has made great progress over the past 2 decades.

                • drloko

                  It doesn’t matter if you call it a prediction or a projection. The models did not perform well compared to the actual temperature pattern. Many have fallen outside of typical statistical confidence thresholds, and are now rejected.

                  This does not mean that all climate models are rejected, nor does it mean that the current models are rejected. But many models from the period 2000 and earlier have not performed well and can be statistically eliminated.

                • Don

                  GCMs capture observed warming robustly. This is shown strongly in the scientific literature, for example:

                  Rahmstorf et al 2012 in ERL (comparing models and obs)

                  Knutti and Sedláček 2013 in Nature CC (comparing model generations & obs)

                  Braconnot et al 2013 in Nature CC (using paleodata)

                  Your claims are, from a scientific standpoint, false. Politically though they are par for the course.

                • drloko

                  So are you prepared to admit that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years is smaller than the trend since 1951”?

                • drloko

                  Your refrences mostly discuss climate models post 2000 which I have specifically exempted.

                  The reference that does discuss it acknowledges that the observed temperature history deviates from model predictions. They adjust the objserved temperatures upward to account for short term solar variability, and then they see a match between the projections and the observed values.

                  Essentially, if the sun had been hotter over the past 15 years, we would have seen better agreement between the models and observations.

                  I do not disagree with this conclusion, but I do not think it provides substantial support for the correctness of the models.

                • Don

                  You would be mistaken to suggest “I do not think it provides substantial support for the correctness of the models”

                  But I welcome a citation from you of a refereed scientific paper that makes your case with substantial evidence.

                • drloko

                  I’m confused. You linked several articles and stated that they provide robust support for early climate models. Now you state that you don’t think these articles provide substantial support for these models.

                  Which is it?

                • Don

                  You made the claim (which I quoted):

                  “I do not think it provides substantial support for the correctness of the models” -drloko

                  I commented that you would be incorrect in that assertion. The papers I cited show very compelling evidence that models robustly capture observed warming; you’ve yet to present a scientific article that shows otherwise, though I welcome such a citation.

                • drloko

                  My opinion is just that, my opinion. To me, I don’t think you gain credibility for the models by observing that if the sun had been hotter then the models would have been correct. It’s an opinion, not a statement of truth.

                  Maybe for you this is compelling evidence. To me, the argument that ‘if it had been hotter then the model would have been correct’ isn’t very compelling.

                  If the Cubs just won more baseball games last year then they would be National Champions. That doesn’t mean that your model predicting them to win it all was correct. In fact, it presents evidence that it was definitely incorrect.

                  The article you cite says that if the sun had been hotter then the temperature would have been higher.

                  Sure, I agree. But that doesn’t make the climate models correct. In fact it provides evidence that the climate models were not correct.

                • Don

                  No, your opinion in that case is incorrect.

                • drloko

                  So my opinion is incorrect. From your posts, correct me if I’m wrong, your opinions are:

                  1. IPCC AR5 is a not a peer reviewed publication – You agree.

                  2. IPCC AR5 cannot be trusted as a climate publication – You agree.

                  3. Pay-to-Publish Journals are high quality resources – You agree.

                  4. Analysis of variance cannot be applied to regression – You agree.

                  5. Observing that the historical record does not agree with early climate models does not undermine those models. Rather, if the sun had been hotter the models would have been correct, thus confirming the models – You agree.

                • Don

                  Your opinion on the papers I cited not concluding what they explicitly concluded is indeed false.

                  Your numbered list is completely invalid, and you are simply presenting strawmen.

                  1) the IPCC is a government reviewed synthesis document, not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

                  2) the IPCC reports are valuable secondary sources; but cannot replace and should not be cited in place of primary scientific sources the IPCC reports are derivative of.

                  3) You have not explained what you mean by “Pay-to-publish”, Open access scientific journals of high quality and strong reputation are no more or less valuable than subscription based journals; but as always taking care to ensure journals of any kind are reputable is always a good idea.

                  4) ANOVA has no necessary use in time series analysis; it is useful for the statistical comparisons of means, and in advanced cases the shape of data. But given the identical data and models uses for the specific analysis I cited, ANOVA has virtually no utility in this circumstance.

                  5) The reliable portions (late 1800’s early 1900’s on) of historical and contemporary observations match well with appropriate GCM projections, as do comparisons with paleorecords. This is most true of contemporary GCM experiments, but even the most rudimentary CO2 based climate models (e.g. Broecker 1972, Science) still match observed temperatures within a reasonable margin given the best estimates of CO2 forcing.

                • drloko

                  I see that you cannot respond directly to any of my points. Now you want to qualify your position on all of the statements you have made.
                  You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts disagree.
                  1) IPCC AR5 was reviewed by climate scientists prior to publication.
                  2) You statement does not address my point. Is the IPCC AR5 a reliable source? yes or no will suffice.
                  3) You can lookup pay-to-publish own your own. Is pay-to-publish Journal a reliable source?
                  4) There are entire books on the subject. Does that mean these authors have simply wasted their time?
                  5) You are misdirecting. I discussed specifically the temperature record post 1998 in light of your reference that adjusted the observations upwards. Do you agree that the observed temperatures, unadjusted and as measured by NOAA or Met, agree with the climate model projections from 2000 and earlier?

                • Don

                  1) simply being reviewed by experts does not make a document peer reviewed, Again examples of non-peer reviewed documents that are reviewed by experts include theses dissertations and academic books (which are often reviewed by expert peers, but are largely not considered peer reviewed). That non-experts have a major say in the review of the IPCC reports and that the reports are not published in scientific journals excludes them from being true peer reviewed documents.

                  2) My statement ignores your strawman and explains my point.

                  3) Pay-to-publish is not a legitimate form of academic publication. No paper I’ve cited is from such a publication model. Open access journals of high repute (where the authors rather than readers) are assessed fees for publication only after a paper has successfully been peer reviewed are just as reliable as subscription based publication models given the journal is reputable and they employ a robust review system. Blanket statements are usually not good things to make, know your journals and be able to tell the scams from the reputable ones regardless of business model.

                  4) You intentionally conflate every possible iteration of trend analysis with the specific one I presented and commented on. For the trend and time series analysis of identical data with identical regression models, ANOVA is useless. But indeed, in general and with few exceptions ANOVA is of very little use for time series and robust trend analysis.

                  5) Observed globally averaged surface temperature trends are captured robustly by contemporary GCM ensemble statistics. Ignoring forcings that are impossible to set in GCM’s a-priori (volcanic eruptions and ENSO which cannot be predicted) however, is NOT the proper way to assess the relationship between GCM ensembles and observations. But even comparing them ignoring basic geophysics, they match is still robust.

                • drloko

                  Still unable to make direct responses. The more you are pressed the more elaborate your responses become. My questions are simple. Yes and no would suffice.

                • Don

                  Yes, real questions require real answers. Why would you ever think I would acknowledge your yes / no strawmen?

                • drloko

                  Yes/no questions have nothing to do with strawman arguments. Strawman arguments are one-sided. Yes/no questions provide you an opportunity to respond, hence, not strawman.

                • Don

                  Strawman arguments are any in which the actual statement or argument of someone is made to appear simpler or in a different form in which it is easier to “knock over”; but at the cost of not being the actual argument at hand. it is an informal logical fallacy. Reducing nuanced and substantial arguments to yes / no format is a strawman argument.

                • drloko

                  Yes/no questions are not strawman arguments. In strawman arguments you don’t have the opportunity to respond. In yes/no arguments you do. Fundamental difference.
                  Yes/no arguments are the norm for legal questioning.

                • Don

                  A strawman argument has nothing to do with anyone’s ability to respond to it. It is an oversimplification or alteration to an argument with the intent to easily dismember that simpler “strawman argument” and hope those paying attention don’t notice that what you’ve dismantled was not the original argument.

                • drloko

                  Yes/no questions are not even arguments, let alone strawman arguments. Yes/no questions do not characterize your arguments falsely in any way.

                  But going with your definition of “hope those paying attention don’t notice”, funny that you want to have discussions about the definition of strawman arguments but are still unwilling to anwser any of my questions.

                • Don

                  I answered them ad nauseum. Why you keep repeating strawmen is anyones guess. My guess however is careful dodging.

                • drloko

                  Me asking you a question is a strawman argument? Wow…

                  So are you prepared to admit that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years is smaller than the trend since 1951”?

                • Don

                  Why on earth do you think I would agree to something that isn’t supported by the evidence. There is no statistically significant change in rates of warming. Even if there were a slightly slower rate would not be a hiatus / pause.

                • drloko

                  As you pointed out earlier, that is a quote from AR5. But then again you don’t think AR5 is a reputable source.

                • Don

                  I never stated AR5 is not reputable; it’s a secondary source, and must be interpreted as such.

                • drloko

                  So AR5 is a reputable source, but when they state “the rate of warming over the past 15 years is smaller than the trend since 1951” they are wrong.

                • Don

                  Even reputable sources can be wrong in certain portions. For example in the 2001 IPCC report there were several entries on Himalayan glacial melt which were grossly inaccurate. That said, they do not make the claim that the rate of warming is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY smaller, which is what a scientist would use to differentiate an actual change in warming rate versus one which is simply short term noise. There has been no statistically significant decrease in warming rate in any of the global surface temperature over the past 2 decades.

                • Don

                  Opinions on factual statements can be false. For example, whether or not you believe hats exist, they do. Models are based on physics, not opinion.

                  Solar variations are largely deterministic and cyclic, and don’t affect GCMs much; volcanic and ENSO events however are largely unpredictable at this point in time, and so must be accounted for in an a posteri manner.

                • drloko

                  If the sun had been warmer over the past 15 years the observed temperatures would have been in better agreement with the models.
                  That isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an opinion by itself. I do agree with that.
                  Does that support the validity of the climate models? Again, an opinion. To me, no.
                  It’s not a question of fact, it’s an opinion.

                • Don

                  More strawmen? Really? No one has made such a silly statement as you present. The projection scenarios do not account for individual volcanic or ENSO events; which by and large to nothing to affect the global warming trend (they are random noise around the secular GW trend). It isn’t opinion to state that increased radiative forcing would increase temperatures, that claim is based on physics and can be tested. Even without adjustment the models capture observed warming just as expected; but scientists care about understanding what model physics to improve. So NOT adjusting for discrete and unpredictable forcing events (volcanoes and ENSO) is absurd when the scientific question is about how faithfully the physics represent reality.

                  All of those are factual matters, they are not opinions.

                • drloko

                  That’s what the paper you cited says.
                  And it’s still a fact that IPCC AR5 states

                • Don

                  That is not what Rahmstorf et al state, nor is that borne out in their analysis. And as I pointed out AR5 does not suggest claim there is a statistically significant decline in warming rate. And again, even if they did, that is not a hiatus / pause.

                • drloko

                  You won’t even agree to the definition of ‘above’. You talk in doublespeak. Pointless to discuss.

                • Don

                  Because you look at a curve with 5 reduced peaks and 4 increased troughs and believe that the whole curve has been increased. You are cherry picking to absurd levels.

                • drloko

                  Look, clearly you are uninterested in having a science discussion. You’re an advocate not a scientist.
                  It’s fine to advocate, the world needs that. But that’s not science.

                • Don

                  You’re talking to yourself now. No reasonable reader would consider that claim as anything but absurd. I hope for your sake you are intentionally attempting to deceive, rather than being genuinely unable to understand why the lowering of 5 peaks and the increasing of 4 troughs on a curve is not uniform “increasing”.

                • Gunning Bedford

                  The fact that the IPCC performed the humiliating climb down from projecting +0.5ºC warming per decade in the FAR, to + 0.15º / decade in the AR5 is a clue the alarmist assignment of forcing to increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere was wrong, and is still incorrect, when UAH 6 average per decade only comes to +0.11º per decade, and +0.5º C since 1979. Here’s another clue, +0.1 per decade is not significantly different than zero, and fails to qualify as an unprecedented rate. Neither does modern climate alarmism prove that any condition that caused warming prior to 1950, ended at 1950 and was replaced by exclusive warming caused by human emissions of CO2.

            • Where did Spencer use 1979-1983? He was one of the first to start using the 1981-2010 three decade period, the first on available in the satellite record. E.g.

              • Don

                Spencer used it in this specific claim. It is both clearly visible and actually labelled on his graphic found on his blog where this claim first appeared.

                found here, (remove spaces)

                drroyspencer. com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

                • It looks to me as though all Spencer was doing was to find a convenient zero starting point show the effects of the models and temperature records since 1983. I wonder if that description is left over from the graphic file he used for a template, as it seems all he needs to do is take the 1983 average temperature as the starting point for all the traces.

                  If he actually used the previous record for the starting point, then things would not have started at zero.

                • Don

                  It looks to everyone else that he used an invalid baseline to produce a misleading graphic. an arbitrary baseline is not convenient; the 1981-2010 climatologically correct baseline for the satellite era is the most convenient; as it is the field standard explicitly for comparison purposes. I’ve already explained the level of deceit in the graphic and the claim earlier.

                  if you try it yourself with the temperature data (the Hadley or UAH records as Spencer uses) you will notice that scaling the graph as Spencer did and changing the baseline between a proper one (1981-2010) and the cherry picked one results in the time series using the cherry picked baseline to appear lower than were it plotted from a proper baseline. Add on top of this the fact that 90 arbitrary model run means were plotted instead of the 95% confidence interval of model ensembles and you have chapter straight out of Daryl Huff’s classic

                  amzn. to/IFodHy

            • Vindaloo Bugaboo

              Look at the 2014 Climate Report from NOAA:

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

              CMIP3/CMIP5 divergence from observed trends, prepared by none other than Gavin Schmidt at NASA. He references the UN IPCC AR5 report to claim solar forcing has had a cooling effect since 1970, but interestingly enough, the UN IPCC doesn’t use solar forcing in their climate calculations (insolation variance). Why not?

              • Don

                In the presentation you link, look at figure 10.1 (originally figure 10.1 from IPCC AR5), on slide 9. Panel A shows the combined ensembles with all forcings compared to observations. Grey is CMIP3 range, yellow is CMIP5 range. Note how observations fall well within both the CMIP3 and CMIP5 ranges. Note how in Panel B (natural forcing only) the modelled temperatures fall well outside the ranges.

                The models used for the recent IPCC reports (CMIP3 and CMIP5) indeed have solar forcing in the models. The presentation you linked takes many of its figures directly from the IPCC AR5 report. Also, insolation has indeed fallen since the 70s and 80’s. (remove spaces)

                1. usa. gov/1KtE3yY

                Are you suggesting that observations falling well within the modelled range represent a “divergence”? Or are you mistaking the observations not falling precisely on a multi-ensemble mean to mean something statistically? When we see that more often than not observations are either above or below the mean, but well within the ensemble range (e.g. early 1900’s, mid 1900’s, late 1800’s, etc).

                • Vindaloo Bugaboo

                  Observations poorly match CMIP3 (lying at the extreme lower end) and only lie within the modeled range for CMIP5 because it’s half a degree broader than CMIP3. AR5 was supposed to use better algorithms and data than AR4. Dismissing the pause because observations still fall within predicted outcomes, when the models broaden the range of possibilities, is rather disingenuous in light of better data and more robust modeling algorithms.

                  From AR5, page 15:
                  “The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal
                  variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. … There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).”

                  Problems with IPCC AR5’s explanation:
                  1. There have been no large, stratospheric-intrusive volcanic eruptions since Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
                  2. The “timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle” does not match reality; SC23 began in 1996 and SC24 began in 2008. Previous solar cycles are not referenced in earlier decades, so why are SC23-24 used to explain the “observed reduction in surface warming since 1998”?
                  3. What “natural internal variability” can then explain nearly two decades of temperature stability in light of the additional 380 gigtons of CO2 (or 40% of all CO2 emitted since 1750) during the same time frame, if, in fact, CO2’s radiative forcing effect is indeed what it’s presumed?

                  My concerns are that CMIP5 is more broadly inclusive of presumed temperature outcomes when better data and refined algorithms should narrow, not expand, the range. I also want to point out the UN IPCC acknowledges there has been a pause that is incongruous with modeling and then uses a hackneyed, hodge-podge of explanations to dismiss it. Figure SPM.10 on page 28 of the UN IPCC AR5 suggests various scenarios for future CO2 emissions through 2100, but the top scale of total CO2 emissions is impossible, given all known hydrocarbon reserves on the planet (upwards ~8000 Gtn vs. ~2800 all fossil fuel reserves, per DOHA.) Why the discrepancy?

                • Don

                  Ok, so you indeed claim that observations falling well within ensemble ranges suggests that models are not capturing observed warming. That is a testable statement which happens to be false.

                  The Ensembles in which ENSO and PDO phase are closest to what they actually were match observed temperatures the best; model ensembles in which most members had ENSO and PDO out of phase were less close to observed warming, but warming was still within ensemble range. Models do not attempt to predict teleconnection phase, rather the runs are designed to cover a representative suite of possible future phase combinations to ensure that the ensemble range captures those possibilities. If it isn’t exceedingly clear, it is ocean-atmosphere teleconnections that are responsible for “internal variability”. Solar forcing, and volcanic aerosol forcing are generally considered external forcings, not internal ones (they actually change the radiative balance of the Earth system, “internal variability” only changes where in the system the energy (aka. heat) goes.

                  This shows us nothing new, scientists have known for at least a decade that ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. all shift where on the globe the ever increasing heat from global warming goes. That the model ensembles which had ENSO and PDO phase combinations that ended up being closest to reality also matched temperature observations virtually perfectly shows how good the model physics actually is. For example see Risby et al. 2014 in Nature CC and Huber and Knutti 2014 in Nature CC (remove spaces):

                  bit. ly/1JVm4DA

                  bit. ly/1KGcOEs

                  Additionally, there is not a reduced warming trend. Warming continues unabated; “internal variability” which is a term to encompass natural ocean-atmosphere teleconnections simply moves the heat around the system to and from the oceans and atmosphere. Again, nothing new, that was known back in the 80’s.

                  And as a point of fact, surface air temperatures have not experienced a “pause” in warming. all 20 of the 20 warmest years recorded occurred in the past 20 years (20/20 NASA GISS, 19/20 NOAA). Grant Foster presents statistical proof that there has been no pause or significant change in rate of warming on his personal blog here (remove spaces):

                  no pause in warming:
                  bit. ly/1cQ7DDG

                  no significant change in warming rate:
                  bit. ly/1Be0G58

                  Foster also confirms this fact, along with the match between modelled projections and observations in his peer reviewed scientific paper with colleagues Stefan Rahmstorf and Anny Cazenave in their 2012 ERL paper (remove spaces):

                  bit. ly/1AGBfOX

                  A few notes on radiative forcing of CO2, the forcing itself is empirically known, there is no possible debate about it. What is sometimes contentious is the warming resultant from a doubling of CO2, which must necessarily include feedback mechanisms. This too is known empirically to some extent from the paleorecord; however the comparison is not perfect, as broad scale geophysical context was not exactly the same in the geologic past as it is at present. Jules Charney and the group of experts convened at the MIT CO2 and climate meeting proposed the warming from a doubling of CO2 would be ~3C +/- 1.5C back in the 60’s / 70’s. That that value has changed little over the past half century with all the testing and studies that have been carried out to assess that value is testament to how robust it actually is.

        • Sarastro92

          Maybe in your world Don, but Climate Science begs to disagree
          “Given the spread of model results at the local scale, the issue is
          not so much one of falsification, but rather that current models do not
          provide much of a guide as to future climate change. Research to address
          this deficit in the models is required in order for the models to
          become truly trustworthy, but it is not clear when, if ever, this will
          be achieved.”

          WIREs Clim Change 2014. doi: 10.1002/wcc.288

          • Don

            GCMs are research tools that allow the production and analysis of projections. Contemporary GCMs provide valuable insight into future climate given a priori emission and forcing scenarios. When specific model scenarios are close to what actually does occur in terms of GHG emissions and other human focrings (e.g. sulfate aerosol emissions) they provide very robust estimates of what that global climate would be.

            Also, I’m afraid you have grossly misinterpreted Hargreave and Annan’s paper which you cite. You will note the important statements as I have inclosed them in double brackets.

            Hargreaves and Annan 2014, Wires CC

            “What are the predictions of climate models, should we believe them, and are they falsifiable? Probably the most iconic and influential result arising from climate models is the prediction that, dependent on the rate of increase of CO2 emissions, global and annual mean temperature will rise by around 2–4°C over the 21st century. [[We argue that this result is indeed credible, as are the supplementary predictions that the land will on average warm by around 50% more than the oceans, high latitudes more than the tropics, and that the hydrological cycle will generally intensify.]] Beyond these and similar broad statements, however, we presently find little evidence of trustworthy predictions at fine spatial scale and annual to decadal timescale from climate models.”

            If you actually read the paper in it’s entirety you will find that Hargreaves and Annan indeed show that GCM projections are indeed reliable, and that the 2-4c warming of the globe and the global scale patterns of warming and precipitation variability it will bring are VERY ROBUST.

            The two do note however that local and regional scale climate modelling is still very imprecise. This is not a surprise to anyone, most especially not climate scientists. Just as it is much simpler and robust a calculation to determine the direction and speed of an entire river through time than it is to determine the direction and speed of a single grain of sand within that river for even very short periods of time; global scale climate changes are much more computationally simple and robust at this point in time than fine scale climate changes at local and regional scales (though regional climate modelling is improving, no one who actually understands the state of the science would suggest regional models are as accurate or precise as global scale models at this point and time, and likely won’t be for at least another 5 to 10 years).

            • Sarastro92

              Judith Curry was on point in commenting:
              “I guess it’s ok to be highly critical climate models, as long as you
              believe the 21st century prediction and the 20th century attribution.”

              As for 21st century predictions. “I would like to see some serious thinking and discussion about
              assessment of fitness for purpose of climate models, on whatever
              timescales.”

              So, unfortunately, the Hargreaves and Annan argues at cross purposes to itself … but this s as good as it gets in mainstream Climate Science. nonetheless the deficiencies remain. GCM have built in the assumption that CO2 is the “control knob” and that there’s is an isomorphic relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

              I cannot argue further with links an citations and data, since EOS has deleted every post that contains such links.

              • Don

                Dr. Curry is not a climate modeller (Like Spencer, she is an expert in remote sensing). Her comments you linked, however, are perfectly valid, and worthy of serious consideration. Which is exactly what the scientific community has been doing for years. GCM’s are not built on “assumption that CO2 is the control knob”, they are built on the physics of radiative transfer as well as planetary fluid dynamics and heat transfer, of which CO2 is a mjor part, as well as solar irradiance, inter-system heat flux, surface and aerosol albedo shifts, etc.

                You can see examples of studies where scientists have done exactly what Curry suggests, and carefully assessed the models with observations and other models. Again see these scientific papers for examples:

                Rahmstorf et al 2012 in ERL (comparing models and obs)

                Knutti and Sedláček 2013 in Nature CC (comparing model generations & obs)

                Braconnot et al 2013 in Nature CC (using paleodata)

                “I cannot argue further with links an citations and data, since EOS has deleted every post that contains such links.”

                I’ve mentioned this to you before, EOS is NOT deleting your posts, Disqus has an automated spam detection system which prevents the same poster from posting multiple posts with active hyperlinks. See how I included my links in this post (spaces after the periods), do that and you will be able to present links.

                • Sarastro92

                  Ah… so one must be a pledged member of the fraternity to evaluate the utility of climate models. Wall Street plays the same game. Unless you’re a robber baron yourself, how dare you criticize our racket.

                • Don

                  Not at all, however the opinion of a proctologist on open heart surgery is less valuable than the opinion of a cardiologist. And of course vice versa were the issue at hand a colonoscopy.

                  Of course, Curry’s statements you provide are reasonable and very valid, but of course she was not the first to think or state that, and many studies present evidence to clarify those issues. Again, see the example papers I cited.

                • Sarastro92

                  Stefan Ramstorf is a polemicist and court jester on the fringes of Climate Science… you don’t really… I mean, come on… of course the others will claim their work is solid as the Rock of Gibraltar… they’d be canned in an instant… you don’t win milliions in government grants by saying your profession is phooey…

                  Funny you should bring up medicine… how apropos to Climate Science shenanigans

                  “Many high-profile cases the world over have demonstrated this lack of
                  ethics when performing medical research. Many esteemed professionals and
                  highly regarded world institutions have succumbed to the ambitions of a
                  few, who for personal gains, have behaved unethically in pursuit of
                  their own ideals. Although institutions have been set up to directly
                  confront these issues, it would appear that a lot more is still required
                  on the part of journals and their editors to combat this behavioral
                  pattern. Individuals starting out at very junior positions in medical
                  research ought to be taught the basics of medical research ethics so
                  that populations are not failed by the very people they are turning to
                  for assistance at times of need. This article provides a review of many
                  of the issues of research misconduct and allows the reader to reflect
                  and think through their own experiences of research. This hopefully will
                  allow individuals to start asking questions on, what is an often, a
                  poorly discussed topic in medical research.”

                  http://www [dot]ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702092/

                • Don

                  Professor Rahmstorf is an eminent physical oceanographer and climate scientist at Potsdam University. He’s an AGU fellow and a McDonnell centennial fellow, and very respected in the field of ocean and atmospheric physics. Do you have evidence to back your libel?

                  Also, Medical literature is quite poor, largely because MD’s, like Lawyers (JD’s) are not trained researchers (both the MD and JD are professional, not research degrees). Of course there are some medical professionals who also hold a Ph.D as well as an MD (or DO), but the problem is one of way too many practitioners with much too little research experience (this in no way is ment to sound as if MD’s are not highly intelligent practitioners of their craft, they most certainly are. It is merely to remind readers that difficult professional degrees do not generally train practitioners to be good researchers as well as good practitioners)

                • Sarastro92

                  Here’s one of there articles dismembering the esteemed Prof. Rahmstorf ‘s most recent research. Straight out of the “Mike Neat Nature Trick” school of climate disinformation.

                  http://climateaudit [dot] org/2015/04/01/rahmstorfs-third-trick/

                  You can read the other installments at ClimateAudit.

                  I rest my case. I’m sure you’ll reply back this is all a conspiracy to malign the greatest mind of the 20th century. So don’t bother.

                • Don

                  So your evidence against the decades of work by and reputation of a well respected and highly awarded scientist is the personal blog of a contrarian mining consultant?

                  Also what does the drop-off in Northern tree ring precision have to do with Rahmstorfs work?

                • Sarastro92

                  No… It’s the criticism of a highly accomplished statistician who has debunked Climate Science fraud on many occasions. McIntyre is hardly the only commentator to debunk Rahmstorf

                • Don

                  McIntyre has published 2 refereed papers, both were debunked by subsequent researchers who tested their claims. But, if you suggest there are peer reviewed papers debunking Rahmstorfs work, please cite them here.

                • Sarastro92

                  All the pal-reviewed journals were exposed by Climategate posts for what they are. Mann’s reputation is mud after McIntyre had him dragged in front of Congress and Rahmstorf is just as bad.

                  These clowns are no longer power brokers among the High Priests… they strictly play to the SS crowd for their entertainment.

                • Don

                  Sorry, what priests are involved in atmospheric and ocean physics? Did the Vatican open up a new geophysics branch with their astronomy group?

                • Sarastro92

                  The Climategate Crowd that crowed about keeping contrarian research from “seeing the light of day”… that invented the hockey stick (which disappeared from the AR5) and erased the MWP (and then restored it in AR5 — and YES– presented graphs of the MWP in the Nh, SH, and Globally)..

                  Yeah, those High Priests protecting the sacred Dogma of CAGW… But like all authoritarian bureaucracies, their grip on power and control is waning and so there’s “meme seepage” even among those who fervently profess undying fealty to the Dogma.

                • Don

                  Oh, so the non-conspiracy that was shown to be a false accusation of fraud by almost a dozen independent investigations? The MWP and LIA were not global changes, they were regional events.

                  “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

                  bit. ly/1cXUsjZ

                • Sarastro92

                  I’m nor going to review the torturous claims and counterclaims surrounding the actual words and deeds of the Climategate crowd. Some of that is headed again for the courts. Sufficient to say the scandal and stink of Climategate greatly diminished the credibility within Climate Science and the outside world as well. This culminates in “meme seepage”.

                  On MWP etc… once again, you are at odds with the IPCC. As stated in these posts, the AR5 WG-1 published tables for the MWP globally and the NH, SH. Try reading the IPCC reports. It’s clear you have no idea what’s in them.

                • Don

                  I don’t expect you to do that. Thankfully it’s already been done:

                  UK house of commons investigation:
                  bit. ly/1EvmZDw

                  International Science Assesment Panel investigation:
                  bit. ly/1HIC8ZD

                  Independent research misconduct investigation by PSU:
                  bit. ly/1cgtUty

                  Independent Climate Change email review commissioned by UEA:
                  bit. ly/1v9kvGy

                  Inspector general of the U.S. department of commerce investigation:
                  1. usa. gov/1LDwBl1

                  Inspector general of the U.S. National Science Foundation investigation:
                  bit. ly/1FBzxNB

                  Not a single reputable investigation found any evidence of wrong doing on the scientists part. The UEA investigation did however suggest that CRU data should be made more easily accessible. Which it since has been. No scientists lost credibility because of that non-scandal, though contrarians and anti-science supporters do like to keep that claim alive.

                • Sarastro92

                  “Meme seepage”… it’s all about that. Your list of exoneration reminds me that no Wall Street bankers are in jail either, nor are the maniacs that lied the US into fake WMD led Crimes Against Humanity in Iraq in front a Nuremberg Tribunal as they should be.

                  However the spinoff from Climategate is that public skepticism of the Climate Catastrophists soared, and the IPCC and others are under such deep scrutiny that the Hockey Stick and the WMP “disappearing act” type “neat tricks” have fallen out of favor.

                  This is what Oresky- and Lewandowsky are howling about. The Climate Inquisition atmosphere is fracturing in the academic world a bit, with “subversive studies” appearing even though authors ritually intone undying loyalty to the Dogma. Anyway, Paris will prove to be the Hysterics Waterloo… all that will be left are dead-enders.

                • Don

                  Ok, so almost a dozen independent investigations all agree that the scientists did nothing wrong, but you still suggest a conspiracy even though government investigations, private investigations, and university investigations all found the same thing independently…

                  Do I sense a flavor of conspiracy-ideation in your rhetoric?

                • Don

                  Dogma, priests, inquisition, subversive stories…

                  Is that a flavour of conspiracy ideation I see in your tangential rants?

                • Don

                  I listed a number of independent investigations from very different sources into the pseudo-scandal. They all conclude the same thing. What reputable investigations could you cite that suggest otherwise?

                • Don

                  You don’t have to, it’s been done ad nauseam and all scientists involved have long since been cleared of any wrongdoing by:

                  Investigation by the Inspector general of the U.S. dept. of commerce
                  bit. ly/1KkUXQ9

                  Investigation by the Inspector general of the U.S. National Science Foundation
                  bit. ly/1FBzxNB

                  Investigation by the U.K House of Commons
                  bit. ly/1EvmZDw

                  Investigation by the U.S. EPA
                  1. usa. gov/1J2RmHU

                  Investigation by international committee at the request of UEA
                  bit. ly/1HIC8ZD

                  Investigation by independent committee at the request of PSU
                  bit. ly/1cgtUty

                  Independent climate change email review
                  bit. ly/1dvbqqS

                  All investigations found NO wrongdoing by any of the scientists. One UEA report suggested improved access for the public to their data; which has long since been implimented.

                  Again, I present the most up to date science on the issue of the MWP and LIA, which shows they were not global events

                  PAGES2k project in Nat. Geosci:
                  bit. ly/1cXUsjZ

                  As for AR5 you must be mistakenly thinking of figures 5.8 and 5.12. 5.8 labels the time periods MCA LIA and 20C. This is not a claim that they are global ; simply a field standard way of indicating those periods of time on charts. And figure 5.12 in the last panel shows how regional temperature was DIFFERENT among many locations between the MCA and LIA periods. This of course is counter to your suggestion that the events were global.

                  Here is what the report actually says about the MCA and LIA from chapter 5.3.5.1:

                  “The timing and spatial structure of the
                  MCA and LIA are complex (see Box 6.4 in AR4 and Diaz et al., 2011;
                  and Section 5.5), with different reconstructions exhibiting warm and
                  cold conditions at different times for different regions and seasons”

                  indicating that they were not globally synchronous events. I believe you have mistaken the community standard of labelling historic periods (e.g. MCA, LIA, 20C) as some kind of claim that they were globally synchronous, rather than just marker times periods for comparisons.

                  It may even interest you to learn that figure 5.12 is based on the 2013 PAGES2k paper I cited in the hopes you would read it. Again, it’s conclusions were:

                  “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age,”

                  bit. ly/1cXUsjZ

                • Sarastro92

                  Just looking quickly at the Nature Geoscience paper that conclusion is that “during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

                  Hmm… 1400 years ago was the Roman Warming period.

                  Anyway, the temperature anomalies listed in WG-1 are broken into hemispheres and the anomalies peak and fall withing a century or so. Just as today global temperatures vary in degree and sign and percentage change in anomaly.

                • Don

                  Temperature rise at present is occurring at a far greater rate than at any time in the historical record. You would suggest a 1c degree warming over 500-1000 years is comparable to a 1C warming over 50-100 years.

                • Don

                  1400 years is also the effective end of that particular study’s time frame; with fewer than half of the continents represented prior to ~500 C.E.

                  Obviously no good scientist is going to interpret global patterns from spatially incomplete data; so the effective range of the analysis is a bit under 1500 ybp.

                • drloko

                  Libel is a serious claim, and misrepresenting that is defamatory. What specifically was posted that you claim is libelous?

                • Don

                  “Stefan Ramstorf is a polemicist and court jester on the fringes of Climate Science” -Sarastro92

                • drloko

                  That is clearly an opinion, not a suggestion of fact. Nothing libelous.

                • Don

                  li·bel
                  ˈlībəl/
                  noun
                  1.
                  LAW
                  a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.

                  It clearly fits the legal definition of libel.

                • drloko

                  That looks like a dictionary definition. Nowhere close to the legal definition.

                • Don

                  It’s the definition from Websters legal dictionary. Here is another from Cornells legal dictionary:

                  “Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.”

                  remove spaces:

                  law. cornell. edu/wex/libel

                • drloko

                  So how has the professor been harmed? Without damages you have no claim for libel.

                • Don

                  No where in Cornell’s definition are damages explicitly specified. It need only “expose a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule” which the statement certainly does. That in itself represents damage to the individuals reputation, which is the basis for defamation.

                • drloko

                  The law requires actual harm, not the potential for harm.

                • Don

                  And that statement caused harm to Stefan’s reputation, the very definition of defamation. Courts seem to be agreeing with my interpretation, as the judge overseeing Dr. Mann’s defamation suit denied the defendants appeal to dismiss the case.

                • drloko

                  Harm is not conceptual. Show me in terms of dollars how Stefan was harmed.
                  The courts do not agree with your interpretation at all. Mann has provided actual evidence of harm, you have not.

                • Don

                  What evidence has Mann provided beyond the defamation itself?

                • drloko

                  You can read the court documents, they’re public. Simply pleading ‘I was defamed because you said x’ is not a sustainable claim.

                • Don

                  and yet that’s the extent of Mann’s arguments

                • drloko

                  No, Mann’s claim clearly states otherwise. Please read it, it’s available online.

                • Don

                  I have, it does not. You must be misinterpreting his action on malice.

                • drloko

                  There is no ‘action on malice’. Malice is not a legal action. I think you are misunderstanding it, but then again you won’t even agree on what ‘above’ means so I’m not surprised.

                • Don

                  You clearly aren’t familiar with Mann’s case then.

                • drloko

                  Malice is not a legal cause of action. Do you agree or disagree? Or do you need to write a three paragraph ‘maybe’ once you realize that it’s not?

                • Don

                  Do you read at all? Like I said, you’re clearly not familiar with the case if you don’t understand why a portion of his claim was interested in attributing malice.

                • drloko

                  Yes or no:
                  Malice is a legal cause of action?

                • Don

                  Reading, it does wonders.

                  bit. ly/1EsbpsU

                • drloko

                  Nowhere does it assert malice as a cause of action. Where do you see it claim malice as a legal cause of action?

                • drloko

                  The articles you cite show that the observed temperatures are much lower than the climate models.

                • Don

                  They do not, for example here is Figure 1 from Rahmstorf et al. 2011 showing observations falling directly in line with model projections (remove spaces):

                  bit. ly/1Bh74c7

                • drloko

                  No, it shows that the observed temperatures are outside of the model projections.

                • Don

                  Then you must not be reading the chart from Rahmstorf et al. 2011. Because that graphic shoes virtually perfect agreement between ENSO and aerosol corrected observations and the multi-ensemble statistics.

                • drloko

                  No, it shows that if you adjust the observed temperatures up then you have agreement.

                  And that means that when you don’t move the observed temperatures up, you don’t have agreement.

                • Don

                  Nothing is “adjusted up”, ENSO and volcanic aerosols are removed. It both raises AND lowers the temperature data (removing the volcanic aerosols shifts those particular periods up, while removing ENSO shifts those periods down). Even with out adjusting for known geophysical forcings, the data still match multi-ensemble projections just as expected.

                • drloko

                  Look at the graph, it increased the observed temperature. Hence, adjusted up.

                • Don

                  Look at the graph, it adjusted observations for ENSO (note the DECREASE at the 97/98 ENSO event) and Volcanics (note the INCREASE at the recent eruption periods). Hence adjusted, not up or down.

                • drloko

                  Wow, you won’t even agree to the concept of ‘up’?
                  Is it higher or lower on the graph? It’s higher. That’s up.

                • Don

                  I see major volcanic cooling events corrected as well as major El Nino warming events corrected. Why you pretend we can’t see that the adjustment removed BOTH cooling and warming due to volcanism and ENSO is beyond me.

                • drloko

                  And overall it went up. It’s plain as day on the graph. Are you really unwilling to even admit that?

                • Don

                  Why would I? Again, it’s an untrue statement. The unadjusted temperatures are both higher and lower than the adjusted ones, as the adjustment process removes discrete warming and cooling events caused by volcanism and enso. It is cherry picking to suggest that the process increased the temperatures and it is cherry picking to suggest that the process decreased the temperatures. It is accurate to suggest that the adjustments removed discrete ENSO and Volcanic events (which are not part of the model scenarios) in order to accurately asses the actual precision and accuracy of model ensembles capturing real temperature change.

                • drloko

                  Ok, then I don’t think there’s anything to discuss. If you really can’t even look at a graph and see one line higher than the other and admit that the higher one is above, then we just don’t have any common frame of reference for a discussion.

                • Don

                  I agree, if you can only make claims with cherry picked information than there is nothing of substance to be discussed. That you cannot identify reductions in peaks around a trend in both warming and cooling directions is quite unfortunate.

                • drloko

                  Again, if you are unwilling to agree to the standard definition of ‘above’ then there is nothing for us to discuss.

                • Don

                  Again, you suggest that reducing the massive warming from ENSO in 1980, 1988, 1991, 1997/98, and 2002/03 while also increasing the massive cooling from volcanism in 1985, 1993, 1996, and 2008/09 is ONLY an increase in temperatures, then we indeed cannot come to an agreement.

                • drloko

                  Right, more doublespeak. ‘Up’ is down, ‘above’ is below, ‘increase’ is decrease, the IPCC didn’t say what they actually said, etc.

                • Don

                  They did not attribute a level of statistical significance to the claim, that’s a fact. They declined to because there was no statistical significance, and the scientists knew that, but government officials would not let the report pass with out containing the claim for political reasons. This is why the primary scientific literature is the best source for strictly scientific discussions.

                • drloko

                  Yep, more doublespeak….

                • Don

                  There is no double speak in the fact that a claim was not attributed statistical significance (a hall mark of the IPCC reports). The fact remains that there has been no statistically significant decrease in the rate of global warming.

                • drloko

                  Again, doublespeak, doublespeak, let me cite a paper and then redefine the terms….

                • Don

                  You haven’t cited a single scientific paper. Funny how that’s always the case with contrarians and psuedo-skeptics.

                • drloko

                  That’s right, I just cited the IPCC AR5 report which in doublespeak world is not peer-reviewed.

                • Don

                  It’s not. Go ahead and cite a specific paper used in it. You won’t because you are using the report as a gish gallop, and you aren’t fooling anyone.

                • drloko

                  There is a wonderful section on references, you can read it yourself. Oh wait, in doublespeak world those are probably essays not scientific papers.

                • Don

                  Yup, lovely gish gallop. Give me a single one of them that suggests models and observations don’t match. Just one. you can’t because none do, and you won’t because you will continue to parrot “AR5” as if it gives your argument ethos while pretending you’ve met the burden of evidence.

                  Go ahead, cite just one that supports your claim. I’ll happily concede your point if you can supply just one scientific paper that concludes GCMs do not accurately capture global average surface temperature observations.

                • drloko

                  What’s the point? If IPCC AR5 doesn’t count then you won’t be satisfied no matter what.

                • Don

                  The point is science occurs in the scientific literature. you can’t discuss state of the art science by proxy through textbooks and reports, which are outdated as soon as they are published.

                  Also it would prove you aren’t just an internet troll. But my guess is that’s a little much to ask from a “doctor crazy” huh?

                • drloko

                  Doublespeak doublespeak

                • Don

                  Well, that answers both questions then. I don’t know what I expected from an anonymous poster named doctor crazy.

                • drloko

                  Because that’s so different than an anonymous poster named Don.

                • Don

                  Overall it went down actually. The magnitude and number of ENSO reductions is slightly greater than the magnitude of volcanic increases. You for some reason are fixated on the singular 2008/09 volcanic event.

                • drloko

                  Right of course it did in doublespeak world. That’s because gravity is a repulsive force.

                • drloko

                  I think you are misinterpreting the graph. The lowest line (the one that ends outside the range of the fourth assessment) is the observed temperatures. Thus, the observed temperatures are outside the range from the fourth assessment.

    • Mike Mills

      Greenhouse gases are the only explanation for why the Earth’s surface temperature is what it is, rather than being well below freezing as would be predicted by a simple energy analysis. Without greenhouse gases, we predict the Earth is a frozen snowball. With greenhouse gases, we get the surface temperature just about right.

      We have observed the concentrations of greenhouse gases increasing steadily since the industrial revolution. We have direct measurements of greenhouse gases since the mid-1950s, and ice core records going back a half a million years. We have proxies from the geologic record going back millions of years. Greenhouse gases are now much higher than they have been in the last 500,000 years, and likely higher than they have been in 20 million years.

      At the same time, we have observed global average surface temperatures increasing steadily at a rate similar to that predicted by our understanding of greenhouse warming. There is no question that humans are producing pollution that is warming the planet now, and which will continue at a rate never seen in human history.

      We understand all of this very well. So when the warming over the last 15 years doesn’t quite match what is predicted by sophisticated climate models, we seek a deeper understanding of what is happening. We don’t throw out well established theories altogether. Heat going into the oceans is clearly something that has to be considered as part of the total global warming phenomenon.

      But we do still continue to observe global temperatures increasing, not decreasing. The 10 hottest years on record have all happened since 1998. 13 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since 2000. The warmest year on record was last year. So, what part of global warming do you think is wrong?

      • GogogoStopSTOP

        Over 40+ years CO2 has risen monolithically. Over that period there’s been 20 years of rising temperature & 18+ years of no temperature rise.

        Conclusion: CO2 & global temperatures are NOT CORRELATED! Q. E. D. Case closed! Next patient!

        • Don

          When were these 18 years? the past decade was the hottest ever, the second hottest was the one before that, the third hottest was the one before that, and the fourth hottest was the one before that…. Are we missing two decades or did you just pop out of a DeLorean perhaps?

          • klem

            I love it when alarmists deny the 18 year hiatus, it makes my day.

            You’d think that 18 years of no warming would be great news, they should be dancing in the streets. But instead they respond angrily to the suggestion, and then claim that the past decade was the hottest in earths history. Lol!

            The alarmists are the science deniers now. I love it.

            • Don

              Funny, I don’t see it. It’s not in the data, not in any of the data sets even… Is it in NASA’s data? (remove the spaces)

              bit. ly/1Q2fJWD

              Nope.

              How about Hadleys?

              bit. ly/1ApOt2o

              Nope.

              What about UAH and RSS, the anti-science favorites?

              bit. ly/1elDtck

              bit. ly/1KaDw4M

              Nope and Nope… Hmm where could it be?

              • drloko

                It’s in AR5, but I’ve already cited that and you deny it’s there…

                • Don

                  You mean this?

                  “The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–
                  2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend
                  since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for
                  short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end
                  years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996,
                  and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24]
                  °C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.
                  Several independently analysed data records of global and regional
                  land surface air temperature obtained from station observations are
                  in broad agreement that land surface air temperatures have increased. ”

                  -AR5

                • drloko

                  That looks like one of the discussions on the hiatus in AR5.

                • Don

                  And yet it states pretty clearly that “Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years”

                  and

                  “Several independently analysed data records of global and regional land surface air temperature obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that land surface air temperatures have increased. “

                • drloko

                  And it also says:

                  The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–
                  2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend
                  since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                  So are you prepared to admit that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years is smaller than the trend since 1951”? Because up to this point you have denied this.

                • Don

                  The range of of rates overlap; they are not statistically significantly different. Even if they were, a decrease in acceleration is not a pause.

                • drloko

                  And now you use strawman arguments…

                  I never referred to a pause, I referred to a hiatus, just as discussed in AR5.

                  Again, are you ready to accept that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years is smaller than the trend since 1951”?

                • Don

                  The term “hiatus” and “pause” are identical.

                  It’s not a strawman, the deffinition of a hiatus is literally a pause…

                  Hiatus
                  hi·a·tus
                  hīˈādəs/

                  (google dictionary)
                  a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process.

                  (Meriam Webster)
                  a period of time when something (such as an activity or program) is stopped

                • drloko

                  Are you ready to accept that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years is smaller than the trend since 1951”?

              • Sarastro92

                There are five data sets that are referred to. I posted a graph of all of them from 1979-present. EOS deleted the references and the post. Congratulations.

              • Sarastro92

                You need to send your complaints to EOS, since this story by Christina Reed assumes there is a “pause”, .. and then to all the Climate Scientists quoted therein (Trenberth and Tung, for example).. When you finish with them, then start writing to Nature Geosciences and Prof Lee as well.

                All these journals and all these key figures … all of them… believe the pause, stasis, hiatus in global temperatures is a “real” problem that Climate Science needs to solve.

                All of them have bibliographies attached to their research which you can read and dispute with them.

                Your obstinance only exposes your true colors: the outside activist fringe for whom climate is a political vehicle not a scientific matter.

                • Don

                  I’ve merely recounted scientific evidence and cited scientific papers and the understanding of the climate system revealed by them.

                  You’ve cited contrarian blogs and defamed respected scientists. Which of us is the activist again?

                  I have no real problem with this article; yes the author ignorantly assumes a pause, many smart people do because they haven’t looked closely at the data. And I wouldn’t expect everyone to look closely at the data, thats why we have experts.

          • GogogoStopSTOP

            The 18 years are the ones addressed in the above paper/article… you know the one we’re commenting on. You can have a lot of hot years and still not have the average temperature change in the last 18 years. Those hiatus years used above, those hiatus years that have 60+ excuses of where the “warm” went, like into the oceans. Just show us the data and stop changing the argument.

          • Sarastro92

            No one disputes the last 25 years were warmer than the preceding. Two large El Ninos (one an absolute monster) can do that coming on top of natural warming trends for the past 20,000 years or so.

            However, in the face of rising CO2 levels current surface temperatures were predicted to be much warmer than observed. Furthermore in the last 18 years of satellite data, the least square regression is entirely flat with some years a few hundredths of a degree cooler and others a few hundredths of a degree warmer… in any case, as the BEST people noted, none of these small deviations around a mean that’s at stasis is statistically significant.

            Your comments reek of desperation… the show has moved on a long time ago.

            • Don

              You mistake exasperation with desperation. It’s quite depressing to see a small handful of loud people so grossly illiterate on important scientific issues.

              What natural forcings were in a warming phase for the past 2 decades? As a matter of fact natural forcings were in a net cooling phase over that period… I wonder why it is then that we still find all of the hottest years in the record occuring during the past 2 decades?

              You can see analyses of natural versus human climate forcing agents such as Meehl 2004 in J. Climate, Lean and rind 2008 in GRL, Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 in ERL, and Schurer 2013 in Nature Geosci. which all show that climate forcing has been dominated by anthropogenic forcing. I’m not sure what “show” you are talking about having moved on, but certainly it’s not the actual science in the scientific literature. I susspect your show is the blogosphere?

              • Sarastro92

                As stated above, links have been deleted by EOS so it’s hard to pursue the discussion.

                Natural forcings? I guess the same natural forcings that warmed the Earth for the past 20,000 years until climate peaked in a general stasis over the past 6,000- 8,000 years. In any case BEST says the climate has warmed a whopping 1.5 degrees C since 1750… much of this occurred in 60 year cycles of stepwise warming and then stasis and cooling. This most recently occurred in the 1979-1998 period and since then there has been temperature stasis … no one doubts that record (except maybe you) … this despite the sharp rise in CO2 from 18985 until 2014.

                The Rahmstorf gang has been greatly marginalized fighting a rear guard battle to disprove the obvious… the realist types that include Trenberth- Tung etc don’t try to argue that the thermometers and satellites are lying but prefer to pursue the quixotic quest to find the “missing heat” that should be observed but can’t be found in the sea or in the atmosphere.

                In any case, none of these figures can explain the Roman and Medieval Warming periods with claims that “the humans did it” … the assumption throughout is that the “natural-normal” global average temperature should be somewhere in the Little Ice Age of the 16th century.

                The “show” is the sideshow that hyped hysteria and alarmism by making the Medieval Warming Period disappear and other Mannian neat “tricks” ( such as the recent attempt to torture observed data to find a troposphere “hot spot” where none exists).

                The sideshow comes to an end in Paris this winter, when the West will mandate economic suicide and the BRICS — led by Russia, China and India– will agree not to stop them.

                • Don

                  The BEST group shows quite well that projections of warming are consistent with observed warming. Paleoclimate data also shows that periods such as the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” and “Little Ice Age” were largely regional events rather than global climate changes (see the PAGES2k paper in nature geoscience here (remove spaces):

                  nature. com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797. html

                • Sarastro92

                  AR4 tried to argue that the MWP was regional… AR5 no longer makes that claim. Trying reading WG-1.

                • Don

                  Try reading what the paleoclimate community actually has evidence for in the PAGES2k programs publications. Again, here (remove spaces):

                  nature. com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797. html

                  If you are unfamiliar with the consortium of leading paleoclimatologists known as PAGES2k their website is here:

                  pages-igbp. org/workinggroups/2k-network/intro

        • Mike Mills

          Which years have had no temperature rise? Compared to what?

          If you are comparing to the previous year, um, yes. Climate has a large natural variability term. We call it weather. Compared to long-term records, temperatures are up and keep going up.

          Climate skeptics love to compare temperatures to 1998, which was one particularly hot year due to a huge El Niño. Still, the years 2005, 2010, and 2014 have been hotter still than 1998, even without the help of a huge El Niño.

          • GogogoStopSTOP

            Please address the non correlation of temperature with the monolithic rise in CO2. Which doesn’t correlate. In fact you cannot site any correlation. “Next theory PLEASE.”

            • Don

              There is nothing to address, Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the radiative forcing due to GhGs. This is directly observed in the field (e.g Feldman et al. 2015 Nature).

              Also, increasing CO2 correlates well with increasing temperatures.

              1. usa. gov/1kwRyDM

              (remove the spaces)

              • Sarastro92

                Going back to the paleo record, sometimes CO2 leads but mostly lags global temperatures, so causality is really not established. In any case, past temperature saltations even in the course of recorded history cannot be explained by rising CO2 levels (Medieval and Roman Warming period) nor can collapsing CO2 levels explain the Little Ice Ages in the Dark Ages and 16th-19th centuries.

                In any case, according to physics, only half of the very small, unremarkable temperature record of the past 165 years (ie .4 degrees C) can be attributed to CO2 levels, and only a small part of residual CO2 levels can be attributed to humans. As you well know, in order to get “scary” levels of global warming, a whole host of positive climatic feedback systems have to amplify (theoretically induced) CO2 levels by a factor of 8 to 10.

                Those positive feed backs don’t exist. Game over.

                • Don

                  There are many events in the paleorecord where CO2 causes all warming (for example the End Permian mass extinction and the PETM mass extinction).

                  Due to positive feedback mechanisms, CO2 sometimes also suppliments other temperature forcings (e.g. milankovitch cycles, albedo changes, etc).

                  however, none of this has any bearing on the absolute physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 necessarily increases surface temperatures through an increased GH effect. That causal relationship was confirmed by physics and chemistry long ago (see Tyndall and Fouriers work in the late 1800’s and the ultimate work of the US Air Force Geophysics lab in Hanscom MA during the 50’s when CO2 warming was interfering with the development of heat seeking missiles).

                  The rest of your post is naturally false, though please feel free to provide the scientific source(s) for those claims.

                • Sarastro92

                  There’s a lot of gold in the ocean too… but not a lot of prospectors out there. You’re attributing magical qualities to small changes in a trace gas, most of which is emitted by Nature herself. “Physics” has spoken and the effect of going from app. 300 ppm to 400 ppm over 150 years is, at most, .4 degrees C. of warming.

                  Physics is not on your side Donald… to get catastrophe you need feedback magic to pump up the heat. For that reason, As I say, the game is over. You can stomp and turn blue but no one, no study group (except maybe Skeptical Science fanatics) has plausibly found such strong positive feed backs and such weak negative ones to conger up catastrophe.

                  Indeed, this is reflected in the steady climbdown on Climate Sensitivity by the IPCC and the High Priests… another Assessment Report of two.. another few years of temperature pause and there will be convergence among the Climate Insiders and the Skeptics… with ECS coming in around 1 degree C +/- .2 degrees.

                  Take tghat on your soap box and see how far you get.

                • Don

                  Global warming already costs the global economy over a trillion USD annually (1) and causes 100 to 400k deaths each year (2). Are you suggesting that is NOT catastrophic? (remove spaces)

                  1) bit. ly/XTZ4kn

                  2) bit. ly/1IY9dj1

                  Granted these figures could be debated, but even a fraction of this would fit any reasonable persons definition of catastrophe.

                • Sarastro92

                  Yeah Right. In your Planet Camelot, floods, hurricanes, droughts, storms never existed. It was all invented with the SUV.

                  But Here’s some news Don: On Planet reality Extreme Weather happens, often (such as the Case of Sandy) in regular 50-80 year patterns.

                  If you bother to read Ch. 2 of the AR5 , WG-1, it’s noted that there is no upswing in frequency and intensity of Extreme Weather in every category save for one. In the US landfall hurricane strikes have dropped to all-time lows since records were formally kept… ditto for tornadoes, for example.

                  The IPCC once again is now the enemy of the SkepSci/ Oreskes Climate Extremists.

                  But on a positive note, perhaps we can all agree on steps to mitigate Extreme Weather? Dykes, sea walls, dams, irrigation and water management canals and restrictive zoning in flood prone areas are all measures that should be pursued to mitigate against Extreme Weather events (and create a lot of jobs).

                  Only doctrinaire libertarians oppose these measures. How about you?

                • Don

                  I linked the reports that show those estimates of damages. You’ll note that the death and damage primarily comes from heat waves, and crop failure caused by climate changes. The number of landfalling hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming; however the intensity change of tropical cyclones does. Hurricanes are interesting because warming provides more moisture to result in stronger hurricanes; but it also results in more boundary level sheer, which prevents them from forming / causes them to fall apart. Extreme heatwaves and drought are not at all time lows.

                  for reference again, here are articles from the Guardian with links to the reports I cited earlier for those figures (remember to remove spaces):

                  bit. ly/XTZ4kn

                  bit. ly/1IY9dj1

                • Sarastro92

                  From the IPCC , WG-1, Ch 2

                  “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical
                  cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of
                  tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified
                  over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

                  “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since
                  1900 is low.”

                  You were saying?

                • Don

                  I stated clearly and explicitly:

                  “The number of land falling hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming”. No one here, especially not me suggest hurricane frequency should increase with global warming; as a matter of fact most scientists expect it to stay the same or go down because, and again I already stated this: “but [global warming] also results in more boundary level sheer, which prevents [tropical cyclones] from forming / causes them to fall apart. ”

                  You are also about 5 years behind in the science; it’s been pretty robustly demonstrated that the overall frequency of hurricanes should not rise (and might even fall) given global warming, but that those that do form would be more intense. This has been shown by several recent studies, such as this recent one by Hurricane expert Dr. Jim Elsner (remove spaces)

                  bit. ly/1cXUsjZ

                  Scientists have always known it would be some trade off between reduced hurricane formation from increased wind sheer and increased energy and moisture from increased temperature.

                • Sarastro92

                  What you wrote “explicityly” was “The number of landfalling hurricanes has nothing to do with global
                  warming; however the INTENSITY change of tropical cyclones does.”

                  And WG-1 Says ““In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

                  You’re just wasting my time now. The rest of the claim is absurd… ie that a rise in temperature of .08 degrees a decade has caused global havoc. Again, the Camelot argument, ie. that Extreme Weather was only invented in the second half of the 20th century.

                • Don

                  And more recent research shows that to not be the case. Science progresses, and the IPCC reports are intentionally and structurally conservative (I.E. erring on the side of the null).

                  Also, low confidence does not mean NO confidence. It has a statistical meaning in the IPCC reports.

                  Extreme weather didn’t start with AGW, it just became more extreme. If you don’t like my claim (which is supported by several reports estimating the damages caused by AGW) then provide robust and legitimate sources of your own that provide evidence based estimates to the contrary.

                • Don

                  And Recent research shows that intensity has indeed increased at the expense of frequency; something expected by experts in the field for over a decade.

                  confidence claims in the IPCC report have specific statistical meaning. a low confidence is NOT a NO confidence.

                  Extreme weather has always been around; it’s simply gotten more extreme thanks to AGW. No scientist ever suggested anything besides that.

                  If you suggest the methods or evidence presented in the reports I linked is in error, cite reports from reputable research groups to counter my claim.

                • Don

                  Please read the reports rather than cherry picking. AR5 states:

                  WGI 2.6.3
                  ” Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency
                  of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the
                  North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al.
                  2007) (very high confidence).”

                  it goes on to note:

                  “Arguably, storm frequency is of limited usefulness if not considered
                  in tandem with intensity and duration measures. Intensity measures
                  in historical records are especially sensitive to changing technology
                  and improving methodology. However, over the satellite era, increases in the intensity of the strongest storms in the Atlantic appear robust (Kossin et al., 2007; Elsner et al., 2008) but there is limited evidence for other regions and the globe. Time series of cyclone indices such as power dissipation, an aggregate compound of tropical cyclone frequency, duration and intensity that measures total wind energy by tropical cyclones, show upward trends in the North Atlantic and weaker upward trends in the western North Pacific since the late 1970s (Emanuel, 2007),”

                  The section concludes (I triple bracketed the important part):

                  “In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of
                  low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in
                  tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes
                  in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is
                  unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major
                  hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. [[[ Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.]]]”

                  So you have misconstrued the findings in AR5 on tropical cyclones. And frankly, the discussion on damages from AGW has very little to gain from the tropical cyclone discussion, as most of the damages are caused by heat extremes and their subsequent impacts on human systems.

                • Sarastro92

                  Your triple marked quote refers to the Atlantic Basic, not the global index… so this is pure sophistry and does not negate the general conclusion of Ch2 .

                  “”“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

                  Plus,Kerry himself has climbed down from earlier claims
                  “The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his (more recent) work,
                  adding that [[[global warming may still play a role in raising the
                  intensity of hurricanes but what that role is remains far from certain.”]]]

                  My brackets for emphasis.

                  In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project
                  activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the
                  number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in
                  some regions does rise.[[[ For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of
                  the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall
                  intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest
                  increase.]]]

                  http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/11/emanuel-2008-global-warming-and-hurricanes/

                  Yeah… very much a work in progress.

                • Don

                  So you fully agree with my initial statements that hurricane landfalls have nothing to do with global warming, hurricane frequency was not projected to increase and has largely been expected to decrease and hurricane intensity has largely been projected to increase. Good to know. Also a good time to remind you Hurricanes are not a major cause of damages from global warming (except by the extra damage caused by increased storm surge from sea level rise).

                • Sarastro92

                  1) There’s a discrepancy between what I believe and what the popular folklore is. So Sandy was widely attributed to AGW, for example… but since you seem enlightened on this matter there’s no need to issue further stipulations.

                  2) There is no uptick in hurricane frequency and landfalls over the century in the Atlantic basin. K. Emmanuel has claimed that the cyclones that occur in the Atlantic will be more intense, but that’s not an observation. That’s a projection based on climate models, and is only as good as climate models. Which are not very good. Emmanuel concedes this himself. And furthermore, his claims are restricted to the Atlantic, not globally. So overall the claim of no uptick globally in frequency and intensity by the IPCC, as I quoted above from WG-1 stands.

                  3) You are correct that the only observed increase in Extreme Weather is “heat waves”… I’m not sure if heat waves are the greatest cause of mortality and damage … but I’ll have to check myself to confirm that claim.

                  In any case, let us agree with the IPCC that global warming over the past century has not caused a rise in Extreme Weather.

                • Don

                  1) who cares about “popular folklore”? Popular folklore also would hold that the earth is 10,000 years old. I care about the science. As far as the science goes, the increases storm surge from Sandy was indeed linked to AGW. The work of Dr. Jennifer Francis would also suggest that the upper level steering mechanism that cause Sandy to hit the coast instead of move out to sea was possibly influenced by AGW (through polar warming shifting the dynamics of the polar jet)

                  2) Dr. Jim Elsner and his students and colleagues have tested Kerry’s claims, and found that the data over the past 30 years show that he was correct. Hurricane frequency in the Atlantic has slightly dropped while intensity has increased. Again, you can read that paper by Dr. Elsner and his former Graduate student in Nature CC, found here

                  bit. ly/1ew316X

                  The Atlantic basin has the longest observational period thanks to NOAA, which is why it is the most robustly understood, but there is some evidence from all basins that TC frequency and intensity has changed with the warming global climate. As for the IPCC, they are clear:

                  AR5 WG1 2.6.3
                  ” Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in
                  the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the1970s in [the Atlantic].”

                  You admitted yourself that Kerry’s claims were restricted to the Atlantic, and of the Atlantic they are true.

                  3) I never suggested the ONLY observed increase in extreme weather was heatwaves, I stated that for damages heat waves (and drought) are the most damaging to human systems.

                  Here’s Fischer and Knutti’s Nature CC paper on AGW increasing the frequency and intensity of Temperature and precipitation extremes

                  bit. ly/1HLsDc8
                  “We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 ◦C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence. For 2 ◦C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises
                  to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming.”

                  Here’s Min et al.s 2011 Nature paper on AGW’s influence on extreme precipitation globally

                  bit. ly/1FDifj6
                  “Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.”

                  Here’s Dai et al.s 2010 Wires CC paper on AGW’s influence on drought

                  bit. ly/1HLtp9k
                  “All the four forms of the PDSI show widespread drying over Africa, East and South Asia, and other areas from 1950 to 2008, and most of this drying is due to recent warming. ”

                  Here’s Zweirs et al.s 2011 J. Climate paper on AGW impacts on temperature extremes

                  bit. ly/1J5vRpX
                  “it is concluded that the influence of anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on extreme temperatures that have impacts on human society and natural systems at global and regional scales”

                  Here’s Coumou et al.s 2012 Nature CC paper on AGW influences on heat waves and extreme precipitation

                  bit. ly/1dxS7gO
                  “Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.”

                • Sarastro92

                  For the moment — as far as weather is concerned, wave droughts being the leading cause of Extreme Weather deaths– YES– you are correct about that.

                  However, ” for droughts, the single most deadly category for the entire period, both deaths and death rates apparently peaked in the 1920s. Since then, they have declined by 99.98% and 99.99% respectively”

                  So the Extreme Weather deaths occurred when CO2 levels were hardly above pre-industrial levels. There is no rising trend of Extreme Weather frequency, intensity or mortality.

                  It would be expected that the cost of damages from Extreme Weather would rise because of greatly expanded population and standard of living.

                  https://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

                  I’ll ry to reply top the rest of your comment later today.

                • Sarastro92

                  Gottra’ work.

                  But For the moment — as far as weather is concerned, wave droughts
                  being the leading cause of Extreme Weather deaths– YES– you are
                  correct about that.

                  However, ” for droughts, the single most
                  deadly category for the entire period, both deaths and death rates
                  apparently peaked in the 1920s. Since then, they have declined by 99.98% and 99.99% respectively”

                  So the Extreme Weather deaths occurred when CO2 levels were hardly above pre-industrial levels. There is no rising trend of Extreme Weather frequency, intensity or mortality.

                  It would be expected that the cost of damages from Extreme Weather would rise because of greatly expanded population and standard of living.

                  https://reason [dot] org/files/death…

                  I’ll try to reply top the rest of your comment later today.

                • Don

                  Care to provide scientific papers to support the claim about droughts? Because it is at odds with the actual literature and the website you linke is not a reputable scientific source. Not only that, the media transparency group Sourcewatch suggests it is an industry front group.

                  sourcewatch. org/index. php/Reason_Foundation

                  by the 20’s and 30’s CO2 was already around 310-320 ppm, well above the pre industrial maximum of ~270-280ppm. I don’t disagree that larger populations in more vulnerable areas would increase the human and economic damage from extreme weather regardless of AGW; but that doesn’t refute or negate the observed increase in the extreme weather events themselves, that makes the problem of increased extreme events from AGW even worse.

                  No scientist suggests AGW caused or causes extreme events, they claim with the support of significant evidence that AGW increases the frequency and/or intensity of many types of extreme weather.

                • Sarastro92

                  An interesting topic, but the Guardian spin is nonsense. Global agricultural productivity has soared since 1900… a small addition to the agricultural sector has provided vastly improved diets to billions more people.

                  It is true that there has been recent volatility in agricultural productivity, but occasional heat waves played little part in this. Post-harvest spoilage vastly eclipses any dimihished crops in the US in the 2012 summer heat wave or in Russia.

                  The picture is for more complex and interesting than the usual simple-minded Guardian hysterical polemics.

                  http://www.ifpri. org/gfpr/2012/agricultural-productivity

                  The US West coast drought, however, is a serious matter but hardly an effect of Climate Change. It’s known from paleo-climate studies that Droughts in the Far West lasted centuries when CO2 levels were less than 300 ppm. Living in a drought prone region requires major infrastructure for dams, waterways, irrigation canals and desalinization.

                  An alliance of libertarian anti- government types with NIMBYs and anti-development Greenies has handcuffed and stymied modern infrastructure technology… so now we’re screwed. But this has nothing to do with climate change.

                • Don

                  Then ignore what was written in the Guardian and follow the links to the reports themselves.

            • Mike Mills

              When you say “temperature”, you are talking about atmospheric temperatures at the surface. But about 90% of the additional heat from our greenhouse pollution warms the oceans. Only about 10% warms the atmosphere. The proportion varies from year to year. This is a big part of interannual and decadal variability.

              That is why we have studies like this one looking at the heating of the oceans to help us understand how global warming is happening now, and give us a better idea of how much we can expect in the atmosphere versus the ocean in the future.

              • GogogoStopSTOP

                Use the data that the IPCC uses or that from East Anglia. Show me the ever increasing temperature along with the ever increasing CO2 content. You keep trying to change the subject. Please don’t introduce warming oceans, etc, etc. Just temperature data and CO2 data.

                “Next theory PLEASE!”

                • Mike Mills

                  If you ignore warming oceans, you are ignoring the most significant temperature data. The upper 2.5 m of the ocean has the same heat capacity per unit area as the whole depth of the atmosphere.

              • Sarastro92

                That’s where the fun starts and Climate Science falls apart… as the Reed article indicates no one has really found the “Missing Heat” … some say it’s in the ocean depths (Trenberth)… some say it’s on the surface waters waiting to erupt as a monster El Nino (England) … it’s in the Atlantic (Tung) .. no the PDO…

                But here’s the thing.., the High Priests have boxed themselves in a corner… because what they argue more and more is that ocean dynamics, NOT CO2 levels are the climate control knob. The argument has slipped through their fingers, hence the rising pitch of hysteria.

        • Mike Mills

          Here in Colorado we understand that a week of snow in May after a week of temperatures in the 70s does not mean that summer is not coming. Solar insolation is increasing monotonically from December 21 to June 21, but temperature doesn’t follow a straight line. It’s called natural variability.

      • Sarastro92

        Yeah… a change of 100 parts per million of a trace gas does not drive the planet into catastrophe. Not now, not ever.

        Hard core ideologues can argue and argue forever… no one is listening anymore. Not the High Priests Climate, not the population for whom climate change is the absolute last priority. Watch what happens in Paris… watch Hilary get her butt kicked by any GOP schmuck if she starts demanding that the US government jack up energy prices to German levels.

        • Don

          A change of less than 100 ppm is the difference between a full quaternary glacial advance and an interglacial period.

          • drloko

            What gas has been shown to cause >10K temperature change at less than 100ppm delta?

            • Don

              Considering the temperature change between interglacial and glacial periods within the Quaternary was closer to 6-8 C (or 6-8K if you prefer), then none. CO2 however was the major contributor to Quaternary ice age cycles as a feedback to the axial tilt (~41k) orbital forcing (pre 700kya) and the eccentricity (~100k) orbital forcing (post 700kya). The orbital forcing alone could only cause 1-2K warming, but that resulted in positive feedbacks warming, CO2, and albedo that resulted in the rest of warming needed to leave the stadials.

              • drloko

                So you believe that a change of CO2 of less than 100 ppm results in a temperature change of 6-8K?

                • Don

                  I do not believe anything. I know, as a well established scientific relationship, that a change in CO2 partial pressure in the Earth’s atmosphere will result in a change in radiative forcing given the empirical relationship:

                  delta F = 5.35* ln(C/Co)W/m^2

                  where delta F is the change in radiative forcing in W/m^2, C is the CO2 concentration at the time in question and Co is the initial (or reference) CO2 concentration (generally in ppm volume)

                  this relationship from Myrhe et al 1998, GRL

                • drloko

                  “I don’t believe anything”. So more squirming as you need to defend your statements.
                  Yes or no: Is it true that a change of CO2 of less than 100 ppm will result in a temperature change of >5K?

                • Don

                  It is certainly possible, though it would depend on the initial concentration and the larger radiative context of the system. You have the empirical relationship I cited, you can test it yourself.

                  Don’t mistake the fact that it is physically possible given certain values of Co as me claiming that it is what WILL happen. I would not make that claim. Though I would point out there need only be slight changes to global average temperature to result in strongly adverse impacts for human society.

                • drloko

                  So it’s a maybe? Your earlier post said it was a fact. Now it’s just a maybe….

                • Don

                  No, it is a physical fact that given appropriate values of C and Co it is possible to see a radiative forcing increase from CO2 that would result in a 5K (5C) temperature change given a ~100 ppm spread. But simply saying that alone is misleading, as it would of course however depend on the radiative context. For example, the same change in C and Co on an earth with no ocean would cause more warming than that same change on an earth with oceans. Or in another more reasonable example the same change in C and Co on an earth with no ice cover would cause a different temperature change than the same change on one with full ice cover. (e.g. see snowball earth).

                • drloko

                  Again, it’s a maybe, not a fact. You made an affirmative statement, now you backpedal.

                • Don

                  I’m not backpedaling; it is a physical fact; but to pretend atmospheric CO2 exists in a vacuum and not an integrated system is false and to suggest so is misleading.

                • drloko

                  Again, a straightforward question for you:
                  Does increasing CO2 by less than 100 ppm result in a temperature change of >5K?
                  With no other factors, just the CO2 concentration change. Given conditions that exist here on Earth at the present.
                  Is that sufficient for you to provide a specific yes/no answer?

                • Don

                  Ultimate warming relies on radiative forcing + positive and negative feedback mechanisms. You could calculate yourself the direct radiative forcing from the change, but you would need to account for the rest of the system to determine how much warming would occur due to a CO2 perturbation (or any GHG perturbation for that matter).

                • drloko

                  Again, under conditions present for the Earth over the past 100 years:
                  Does increasing CO2 by less than 100 ppm result in a temperature change of >5K?

                  That should give you enough specifics for the ‘ultimate warming’, ‘positive and negative feedback mechanisms’ and allow you to account for ‘the rest of the system’.
                  Or is it that you are unable to determine if the warming would be that great or not?

                • Don

                  An increase from 400-500ppm CO2 would result in an increased radiative forcing of around 1.2 W/m^2. Given current estimates of CO2 sensitivity that would result in between 2 and 4.8K of temperature increase.

                • drloko

                  So how much has CO2 changed over the past 100 years?

      • CHEMST

        Overly simplistic models that, year after year for a decade and a half, have predicted a degree of warming not observed. Please cite the model that predicted the “pause”? Because it does not exist.

        • Mike Mills

          Here is the citation you request for a model that shows a pause in warming between 2000 and 2013:

          Dai A, Fyfe JC, Xie SP, Dai X (2015) Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability. Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2605

          Article Download: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/pdf/nclimate2605.pdf

          This study looks at internal climate variability with a large ensemble of model runs. Each run represents a particular outcome, dependent on the specific model initial conditions. Global-mean surface temperature in run no. 11 of the ensemble happens to change little from 2000 to 2013, in contrast to the steady warming in the 30-member ensemble mean (see Figure 4a).

          The real atmosphere does not follow the mean trend of an ensemble of outcomes. We experience only one of many possible outcomes. Model simulations show that a decadal “hiatus” in continued warming is to be expected from time to time as warming continues in the 21st Century.

          • CHEMST

            Really, they ran their code 30 times and only run #11 fit the data. Very good. I will then assign the appropriate certainty to their predictions. A 3% likelihood of happening.

            • Mike Mills

              Well, that is certainly orders of magnitude greater than the probability of any one of us being born, given the initial conditions in 1850. Things with less than 3% probability happen all the time. Moreover, the probability of there being a decadal slowdown in warming at some point over a century of warming is very high, given the modes of internal climate variability.

              The global average surface temperatures have not decreased, nor have they stopped increasing, since 2000. Warming continues at rates unprecedented in human history. The fact that atmospheric surface warming is not as fast in the last decade as predicted by the ensemble average of model runs is simply reason to explore more deeply the complexities of the climate system. This includes tremendous increases in the heat content of the oceans. Those who are truly interested in pursuing such questions might start by reading these links:

              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/

      • CHEMST

        For those too indoctrinated to the (now political cause) of Global Climate Change. Hear is my scientific opinion in nutshell.

        Fact: From 1980 to 1998, bot the CO2 content of the atmophere and the temperature of the planet rose rapidly.

        Reasonable conclusion: They may be related through a simple model based on the fact that an increase in global warming gases must result in a commensurate increase in solar radiation adsorption by the global warming gas molecules.

        Fact: Over the last 15 years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to climb at the same rate as the previous 15 years while the rapid rate of warming did not continue.

        Most reasonable conclusion: The correlation assumed to exist over the previous 15 years must be too simplistic. New models that account for all of the last 30 years of data must be developed before any conclusion can be reached on causality.

        Unscientific, less reasonable conclusion: The theory of causality still holds true despite the data, and we must search for a possible explanation of why the unobserved phenomena is unobserved.

  • How was flow through heat separated from natural warming effects and how is any of that heat attributed to CO2? During the negative PDO the “zonal displacement of the convergence centers associated with Walker circulation induces subsidence in the eastern tropical Indian Ocean resulting in suppressed rainfall and anomalous easterly winds (Lau and Nath 2000; Shinoda et al. 2004) followed by a basin wideTIO warming due to increase in the short wave radiation and decrease in the latent heat flux (Yu and Reinecker 1999; Chowdary and Gnanaseelan 2007). This warming is the dominant mode of interannual variability” Sayatani 2015

  • Don

    Good article EOS, but why are we still perpetuating the idea that there has been or is a “hiatus” in global warming? As an official publication of the American Geophysical Union, it really should not come as a surprise that a long term secular trend (global warming) that persists in the context of natural variability would appear exactly as it does in the data. Add on top of this the fact that if we actually take the time to examine the recent trends in the globally averaged surface temperature records (as Grant Foster does here: http://bit.ly/1cQ7DDG), we would see that there has clearly been no “pause” in recent warming. We could then look at the rates of that warming (as again, Grant Foster does here: http://bit.ly/1Be0G58) we would see that there is also no statistically significant change in the rate of recent warming. Am I to assume that even many scientists who clearly know better are suggesting a graphical artefact is evidence of a “hiatus” or “pause” in the warming of surface temperatures when the data show clearly the contrary? Or do we just accept what psuedo-skeptics claim with out evidence and try to apologize for phenomena that aren’t actually borne out in the data now?

    • CHEMST

      So the data, actual temperatures, are not relevant anymore. Your theory has progressed beyond the primitive concepts based on actual observations?

      • Don

        I link to direct analysis of the all major global average surface temperture datasets while suggesting people actually look at the data with proper statistical rigour, and you believe I suggest the data is not important? I would love to know where you got that idea, because it certainly wasn’t from me.

        • drloko

          Your links do not provide any statistical rigor. There is no error analysis, no analysis of variance, no control model for comparison, no control variables, and no elimination of competing hypothesis.

          Your links employ the same level of statistical rigor as stock market chart analysis.

          • Don

            the 95% confidence intervals of the regressions are plotted along with the models themselves. Two models are presented, the control (warming continued with no change) and the hypothesis (pause in warming). Analysis of variance has no use in trend comparisons (it is only useful for comparing means, which we are not interested in) and error analysis of regression of the same data is not useful nor would it tell us anything of interest about the actual trends, as we are not changing the parameters or variables in the regressions at all.

            Your suggested statistical tests are largely useless for the question we are asking (is there a pause in warming since 1997 or not). Use the right tool for the right job, as not every question is a nail just because all you know is a hammer.

            • drloko

              Plotting control bounds is not statistical analysis. It makes a regression chart into a control chart.

              Warming is a random walk, not a random deviate. Counting the number of points above/below a linear fit is not an analysis. This type of analysis is subject to large variations, especially given the year-to-year fluctuations along the walk.
              There is no error analysis presented. In order to accept/reject a hypothesis we need an analysis of the potential errors. Here are a few of the deficiencies that peer-reviewed literature would typically analyze:

              1. What is the probability of the post-1998 years to lie above/below the trend? The author simply assumes that is must be 50%. There is no proof, and there is no analysis of the likelihood that this may occur randomly. We are simply told that because we see x of y points above that this is important. The author needs to establish that the chance of this occurring randomly is small, and there is nothing that addresses this.

              2. The author chooses to trend through 1997 and didn’t include 1998 which is high. If 1998 had been included it would have increased the slope and then more future points would have been below the extended trend. Most analysis of the hiatus include 1998 in the past data and examine the post-1998. This means that this work is not easily comparable to the majority of literature on the subject.

              3. Any regression trend has an error for the slope. The author does not analyze the effect of this error has on the number of points above/below the trend.

              4. The author does not present the chi-square for the original fit, and also does not present this for the post-1998 era. I would expect a comparison of the extended fit along with the fit parameters of the post-1998 era, with an analysis showing that the fit parameters are within error of each other. Without this analysis there is nothing convincing me that the extended trend is actually a fit to the post-1998 data.

              5. The analysis of variance I am referring to is not the ANOVA that you are talking about. The two are related but there is a more general concept behind the analysis of variance than is captured in AVNOA. The author does not attempt to examine the stochastic behavior of the walk from the pre-v-post 1998 eras. Moreover, there is no analysis of the pre-1980 era where temperatures were falling while CO2 was rising. Failure to point out and examine these issues brings the credibility of the analysis into question.

              If you read the peer-reviewed literature on climate change you will find these issues pointed out and discussed in length, and it is this type of thorough analysis that makes the science persuasive. Failure to do this leaves the work subject to many attacks and undermines climate science generally. When this type of superficial analysis is presented and easily dismissed, it can make the general public believe that there is a large amount of uncertainty when there is really not much uncertainty in the academic quality literature.

              • Don

                Climate, temperature especially is not a “random walk”, I’m embarrassed for you that you mistook an autocorrelated, dynamic physical time series for a purely stochastic process.

                Foster, who you may or may not recall was integral in developing wavelet analysis for physical time series analysis (Foster, 1996, the Astronomical Journal) explains exactly why he used the start and end dates he did, and why we should expect a half/half split around our a priori trends. While you are reading his trend analysis, you should also read his analysis of warming rates, the one here: (remove the space)

                bit. ly/1Be0G58

                • drloko

                  An “autocorrelated dynamic physical time series” that contains a random element is a type of random walk. Any process that contains a random element summed over time is a random walk (more formally, a stochastic process).

                  I see once you are challenged on the science you resort to personal attacks and name calling. That is not science and it appears you have no science to argue your point.

                • Don

                  Being embarrassed for you is neither an attack nor name calling. It’s an unfortunate emotion borne from anonymous internet posters trying to argue science with a gish gallop of rather impressive sounding terms that of course have little or no application to the discussion at hand. I’m sure you are a wonderful person with a rich social and intellectual life… but there really isn’t anything of substance to debate. The period psuedo-skeptics claim is a pause / hiatus has seen temperatures above what would be expected even for warming as usual; such a pause does not exist by any stretch of the imagination. And there is no statistically significant trend in rate of warming either.

                  (remove space)

                  http://bit. ly/1Be0G58

                • drloko

                  You are being demeaning and it’s completely uncalled for. Can you apologize for making demeaning comments? Or is that what you consider good science?

                • Don

                  Had I made a demeaning comment I would gladly apologize, however you’re the one who suggested ANOVA for trend analysis (among other statistically aberrant things)… Such statements baffle the senses and truly cause great empathetic embarrassment in my heart.

                • drloko

                  You mentioned ANOVA, not me.
                  Please reread my comments.

                • Don

                  I quote:

                  “Your links do not provide any statistical rigor. There is no error analysis, no analysis of variance, no control model for comparison, no control variables, and no elimination of competing hypothesis.”

                  -drloko

                • drloko

                  And thus I never mentioned Fisher’s ANOVA. Fisher’s ANOVA is a particular type of analysis of variance, it is not the entire subject.

                • Don

                  Analysis Of VariAnce. That is literally what ANOVA is, and analysis of variance does not refer to a subject. If you meant to simply suggest a quantification of or measure of variance actually using a proper term / method or phrasing it in any other way then a well known statistical suite with a specific meaning banal to everyone who’s passed elementary statistics would have been a good idea.

                • drloko

                  ANOVA is Fisher’s examination of a particular statistical test. There are other methods of analysis of variance that may be applied to different topics. If you are in the social sciences then ANOVA may be synonymous with the entire subject. However, other disciplines use different versions and typically do not refer to it as ‘ANOVA’ but ‘analysis of variance.’

                  And I see you continue to make demeaning comments. Is that what good science is to you?

                • Don

                  An anonymous poster named “doctor crazy” is lecturing me about science on an EOS article.

                  Good science is in reputable journals, I never expect to and never will find it in the comments section. And in physical science Analysis of Variance is still synonymous with ANOVA. If we want to discuss comparing variance between data sets we say that, or discuss specific methods (e.g. F-tests).

                • drloko

                  So can you admit that I did not mention ANOVA but it was in fact you that mentioned it first?

                  Are you able to apologize for making demeaning comments?
                  Are you able to apologize for misstating what I said?

                  Sorry that you don’t feel that IPCC AR5 is a reputable source. We simply disagree on what quality science material is.

                • Don

                  I literally posted your quote where you mention Analysis of Variance first, I am many things, a liar is not one.

                  I would be happy to apologize if I had demeaned you; I have not, simply exposed your tactic of gish galloping.

                  I did not misstate what you said, you misstated specific statistical methods

                  AR5 is a useful agglomeration of sources, but the report itself is not a primary source. I asked for even just one peer reviewed citation from a scientific journal showing that contemporary GCMs do not capture contemporary global surface warming. Your inability to provide even one while I happily provided one that showed the contrary is telling of the lack of evidence behind your position.

                • drloko

                  So even faced with the quote of mine that you yourself pulled, that clearly does not state ANOVA, you still cannot bring yourself to admit that you jumped to a conclusion?

                  And through all of your examination of ANOVA, that article you cite still doesn’t supply any of the error analysis elements I pointed out.

                • Don

                  ANOVA and analysis of variance are the same term. Just as sea surface temperature and SST are the same term, and NASA and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are the same term.

                  You’re muddying your ethos even more; error analysis on identical regressions is about as pointless an affair in this trend analysis as any.

                • drloko

                  And you still cannot respond to any of my points. Just demeaning comments with no substantive response.

        • Sarastro92

          I posted links that present all the top five data sets for comparison. EOS deleted the post. The graphed sets were published on verboten sites. So any rational, scientific discussion has been terminated by EOS and AGU. Congratulations. Lysenko would be proud.

          • Don

            That is an automated spam detection process. Read my posts, see how I have to put spaces after periods to allow links to appear. Before accusing EOS of wrongdoing, use your head.

            • Sarastro92

              Ok… Funny, not a single Disqus site invokes this practice… I’ll be sure and check in to the Guardians of EOS for posting instructions.

            • Sarastro92

              In any case, the message that appears from EOS is that the comment is awaiting approval, not a message that says ” We think your posting is spam”… EOS needs to hire you to cover for them.