How Long Will the Hiatus Period Last?

[Snow_Miser]

There were a few papers that have come out recently that have continued to extend the hiatus period into the future. The obvious question then pops up. Just how many more years do we need to not warm in order for there to be something wrong with the models?

In the press release for Wyatt and Curry 2013, Marcia Wyatt noted that the pause could last until the 2030s. That would mean 17-26 additional years of no warming, and by any account the models would be falsified. On some accounts, the models have already been falsified.



Now another paper has been accepted for publication, and claims that the Earth will slightly cool through at least 2027 as a response to internal variability negating anthropogenic forcing. That would mean an additional 14 years of no warming.



Forecasted temperatures from Li et al. 2013 above.

How much longer will the Earth continue to not warm? That's an important question that will only be resolved when the Earth finally starts to warm again.

[Jonger]

The warmers have a great method to erase the hiatus by shifting the start period, lets see how many ways we see the usual suspect drag those charts out. There hasn't been much of an upward trend since the 1998 GISS Obs bias tweak.

[skierinvermont]

You're the one starting the trend in the strongest El Nino in a century and at the same time accusing "warmers" of fiddling with start dates?

 

Using a fair start date the earth has been warming about .07-.08C/decade the last 15 years. 

 

 

 

This study is yet another simple statistical study. They correlate 11-yr smoothed NAO (lagged 16 years) with northern hemisphere temperature, and then they use this correlation to predict the future. Given the lack of strong causative mechanism and the ease with which statistical correlations can be found (ie created artificially) in a garbage pile of climate data (especially when you start smoothing and throwing in "lags" to maximize the correlation), I remain skeptical.

 

It's also worth of note that the projection is for the NH only, which would likely mean continued slow warming for the earth as the SH continued to warm. 

 

I expect warming over the next 20 years will be near .15C/decade (+/- .1/C). I see some chance for the slow period to continue, but I also see a chance that warming will be rapid (.25C/decade) to make up for the slow period we've already had. 

[Snow_Miser]

 

It's also worth of note that the projection is for the NH only, which would likely mean continued slow warming for the earth as the SH continued to warm. 

 

Why would it be likely that the SH would "continue to warm" while the NH is predicted to continue to flatline/slightly cool, when the SH temperatures have also flattened out over the last 10 to 15 years or so?

 

[GaWx]

Without reading that paper (no time to right now), I suspect the current solar grand minimum, depending on how much of a cooling factor it turns out to be, will have a big say-so in what happens over the next 20 years or so. It is still pretty uncertain.

[Snow_Miser]

It's also interesting that some skeptic authors were hinting at this in non-mainstream journals before this idea of a 20 year cooling trend was published in mainstream journals.

 

http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Global_dT_prediction_using_60-70_years_periodicity.pdf

 

[nzucker]

You're the one starting the trend in the strongest El Nino in a century and at the same time accusing "warmers" of fiddling with start dates?

 

Using a fair start date the earth has been warming about .07-.08C/decade the last 15 years. 

 

 

 

This study is yet another simple statistical study. They correlate 11-yr smoothed NAO (lagged 16 years) with northern hemisphere temperature, and then they use this correlation to predict the future. Given the lack of strong causative mechanism and the ease with which statistical correlations can be found (ie created artificially) in a garbage pile of climate data (especially when you start smoothing and throwing in "lags" to maximize the correlation), I remain skeptical.

 

It's also worth of note that the projection is for the NH only, which would likely mean continued slow warming for the earth as the SH continued to warm. 

 

I expect warming over the next 20 years will be near .15C/decade (+/- .1/C). I see some chance for the slow period to continue, but I also see a chance that warming will be rapid (.25C/decade) to make up for the slow period we've already had. 

Yes, agree that the last 15 years have shown a trend of .06-.08C/decade, about half of the predicted rate from the GCMs. The surface readings have actually shown slightly less warming, in the .05-.06C/decade range. At this rate, we'd warm about .7C by 2100, which is only one quarter of the warming predicted by the IPCC. We definitely need acceleration to occur in the next years to expect climate change in accordance with the models. 

 

I would think if the Northern Hemisphere doesn't warm a lot, there won't be much global warming in total. The Southern Ocean and Antarctica have been among the few areas of the Earth that haven't warmed significantly since the 1970s...the highest rates of warming have been 3-5C in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, such as the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada, parts of Siberia, and of course the Arctic. With the continued expansion of SH sea ice and the rapid decline of the Arctic, I would think high rates of warming are most likely to come from the Northern Hemisphere if at all. 

[Snow_Miser]

Yes, agree that the last 15 years have shown a trend of .06-.08C/decade, about half of the predicted rate from the GCMs. The surface readings have actually shown slightly less warming, in the .05-.06C/decade range. At this rate, we'd warm about .7C by 2100, which is only one quarter of the warming predicted by the IPCC. We definitely need acceleration to occur in the next years to expect climate change in accordance with the models. 

 

I would think if the Northern Hemisphere doesn't warm a lot, there won't be much global warming in total. The Southern Ocean and Antarctica have been among the few areas of the Earth that haven't warmed significantly since the 1970s...the highest rates of warming have been 3-5C in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, such as the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada, parts of Siberia, and of course the Arctic. With the continued expansion of SH sea ice and the rapid decline of the Arctic, I would think high rates of warming are most likely to come from the Northern Hemisphere if at all. 

 

According to Fyfe et al. the analyzed trend since 1998 is actually 0.05 Degrees C +/-0.08 Degrees C/decade, not significantly different from zero. 

 

The predicted rate of warming from GCMs during this timeframe according to this paper was 0.21 Degrees C/decade.

[nflwxman]

We are still on this 1998 thing? 1998 was 2-3 standard deviations above the trend line (the strongest El Niño in 100 years). The truth is this argument is going really going to bite skeptics down the line as earth continues to gain heat. Really the fascination with starting a trend at that year is being very unfair to the data. IF you really want to compare apples to apples, either extend the trend out to the requisite 20-30 years or use

a La Niña dominated period (such as 1999-2000).

[Snow_Miser]

We are still on this 1998 thing? 1998 was 2-3 standard deviations above the trend line (the strongest El Niño in 100 years). The truth is this argument is going really going to bite skeptics down the line as earth continues to gain heat. Really the fascination with starting a trend at that year is being very unfair to the data. IF you really want to compare apples to apples, either extend the trend out to the requisite 20-30 years or use

a La Niña dominated period (such as 1999-2000).

 

The models overestimated the trend from 1993-2012 by over a factor of 2 according to Fyfe et al. It's not just since 1998. 

[nflwxman]

The models overestimated the trend from 1993-2012 by over a factor of 2 according to Fyfe et al. It's not just since 1998.

The trend since 1993 is about .17 c/decade. Thats over estimated by a factor of 2? Seems fishy.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, agree that the last 15 years have shown a trend of .06-.08C/decade, about half of the predicted rate from the GCMs. The surface readings have actually shown slightly less warming, in the .05-.06C/decade range. At this rate, we'd warm about .7C by 2100, which is only one quarter of the warming predicted by the IPCC. We definitely need acceleration to occur in the next years to expect climate change in accordance with the models. 

 

I would think if the Northern Hemisphere doesn't warm a lot, there won't be much global warming in total. The Southern Ocean and Antarctica have been among the few areas of the Earth that haven't warmed significantly since the 1970s...the highest rates of warming have been 3-5C in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, such as the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada, parts of Siberia, and of course the Arctic. With the continued expansion of SH sea ice and the rapid decline of the Arctic, I would think high rates of warming are most likely to come from the Northern Hemisphere if at all. 

 

According to the see-saw theories one might expect the exact opposite... when the NH warms slow the SH is faster and vice versa.

 

Also, an area that has seen little warming is probably due for a period of decent warming... GHGs effect the whole earth fairly equally (some differences but the SH is definitely supposed to see solid warming). 

[Snow_Miser]

The trend since 1993 is about .17 c/decade. Thats over estimated by a factor of 2? Seems fishy.

 

According to the paper I posted, the trend since 1993 is actually 0.14 Degrees C/decade. The modeled trend during this same time frame is 0.3 Degrees C/decade. Less than half. 

[nflwxman]

According to the paper I posted, the trend since 1993 is actually 0.14 Degrees C/decade. The modeled trend during this same time frame is 0.3 Degrees C/decade. Less than half.

That seems too low. Check the major data sources.

[Snow_Miser]

That seems too low. Check the major data sources.

 

The paper I posted used the major data sources. Please read the paper. 

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

[nflwxman]

The paper I posted used the major data sources. Please read the paper. 

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

I did read through the paper and perhaps they are using the Hadcrut3 surface temperature record which shows close to a 0.14 C/decade.  They seem to place some of the blame for the "hiatus" on stratospheric aerosals, which is not a new thought in terms of recent increased small-scale volcanic activity.  

 

One big pet peeve I have with the paper is the headline grabbing title "global warming overestimated."  In reality, the title is kind of misleading.  Global warming does not just mean the surface temperature record to which they exclusively focus on.  As explained many times by climatologists, over 90% of additional heat goes into the ocean.

 

For the record, I'm with Skier on this.  I believe there is a high likelihood that the statistical improbabilities that have occurred over the past 5 years (75% ENSO negative with low sun) will begin to see-saw backwards in the coming years (to a more expected 50-60% ENSO negative).  I also believe that man made aerosals will begin to decrease over the next decade as China and India become smarter on smog.  Due to this I would not be surprised to see another global temperature record between 2016-2020, which an effective statistical end to the "hiatus" by 2018.  The only disclaimer I have is if the sun becomes very quiet after this solar maximum.  That could obviously create a sizable dent in the 15-20 year trend.

[Snow_Miser]

I did read through the paper and perhaps they are using the Hadcrut3 surface temperature record which shows close to a 0.14 C/decade.  They seem to place some of the blame for the "hiatus" on stratospheric aerosals, which is not a new thought in terms of recent increased small-scale volcanic activity.  

 

They are not using HadCruT3.. they are using HadCruT4.. which does not have a drastically different warming rate than NCDC or GISS since 1993. NCDC has a +0.13 Degree C/decade trend since 1993, and GISS has a +0.16 Degree C/decade warming trend. The average of all three datasets still gives you a +0.14 Degree C/decade trend since 1993. 

 

Including the satellite datasets (which may be viewed as inappropriate since satellites measure the Troposphere and not the surface), you still get a +0.14 Degree C/decade trend. This is less than half of what the models predicted, even when the rapid rate of warming in the 1990s is considered, and is a problem for the modeling community. 

 

Since the beginning of 1998, the average decadal trend with all five datasets is +0.03 Degrees C/decade, thus even lower than analyzed in the Fyfe et al. paper. 

[tacoman25]

The trend since 1993 is about .17 c/decade. Thats over estimated by a factor of 2? Seems fishy.

 

The world was cooled significantly by Pinatubo in 1992-93.

 

Skiier and Zucker were correct, over the past 15 years, ENSO-corrected warming has only been between .05C-.09C/decade. About half of what most models predicted. Since 2001-02, it's been even slower.

[nflwxman]

The world was cooled significantly by Pinatubo in 1992-93.

 

Skiier and Zucker were correct, over the past 15 years, ENSO-corrected warming has only been between .05C-.09C/decade. About half of what most models predicted. Since 2001-02, it's been even slower.

 

That is accurate as ENSO is not the only thing contributing to the recent slowdown in surface temperature rise. There are a few papers that use very detailed regression methods to filter out the signal to noise ratio for natural variability.  Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 being one of the more detailed.

 

 However, it is worth noting that the HadCRUT4 and NOAA temperature records don’t cover the whole planet. Omitting the Arctic in particular produces a cool bias in recent temperatures. (e.g. Hansen et al 2006, Folland et al 2013). Makes me believe that the GISS temp or UAH might be the best source to determine a short term trend.

[LakeEffectKing]

 

I did read through the paper and perhaps they are using the Hadcrut3 surface temperature record which shows close to a 0.14 C/decade.  They seem to place some of the blame for the "hiatus" on stratospheric aerosals, which is not a new thought in terms of recent increased small-scale volcanic activity.  

 

One big pet peeve I have with the paper is the headline grabbing title "global warming overestimated."  In reality, the title is kind of misleading.  Global warming does not just mean the surface temperature record to which they exclusively focus on.  As explained many times by climatologists, over 90% of additional heat goes into the ocean.

 

For the record, I'm with Skier on this.  I believe there is a high likelihood that the statistical improbabilities that have occurred over the past 5 years (75% ENSO negative with low sun) will begin to see-saw backwards in the coming years (to a more expected 50-60% ENSO negative).  I also believe that man made aerosals will begin to decrease over the next decade as China and India become smarter on smog.  Due to this I would not be surprised to see another global temperature record between 2016-2020, which an effective statistical end to the "hiatus" by 2018.  The only disclaimer I have is if the sun becomes very quiet after this solar maximum.  That could obviously create a sizable dent in the 15-20 year trend.

It's not misleading when the "hiatus" is in context with what was expected of surface temperatures during that period. Stop spinning. 

[nflwxman]

 

It's not misleading when the "hiatus" is in context with what was expected of surface temperatures during that period. Stop spinning. 

How is that spinning exactly?  To suggest that surface temperature warming and global warming are two different entities?  I miss your logic there.

 

Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.  From the venerable wikipedia.

 

If ice is melting and the ocean is gaining heat, but the 2m surface temperature is not rising, does that mean the end of global warming?

[tacoman25]

That is accurate as ENSO is not the only thing contributing to the recent slowdown in surface temperature rise. There are a few papers that use very detailed regression methods to filter out the signal to noise ratio for natural variability.  Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 being one of the more detailed.

 

 However, it is worth noting that the HadCRUT4 and NOAA temperature records don’t cover the whole planet. Omitting the Arctic in particular produces a cool bias in recent temperatures. (e.g. Hansen et al 2006, Folland et al 2013). Makes me believe that the GISS temp or UAH might be the best source to determine a short term trend.

 

No matter how you want to look at it, over the past 10-15 years there has definitely been a slowing of the warming, and the warming has been less than previously expected.

[SVT450R]

No matter how you want to look at it, over the past 10-15 years there has definitely been a slowing of the warming, and the warming has been less than previously expected.

Exactly and the longer it continues the more we deviate from the projected warming that models have forecasted.

[Jonger]

CO2 used to warm the atmosphere (supposedly), but during the hiatus it no longer does anymore. The ocean should receive heat today in a similar manner as when it used to warm the land surface, but it doesn't.

 

1880-1998 the Ocean and Surface warmed.

1998-2013 the Ocean warming rate slowed and the land warming rate nearly stalled.

 

That's not really debatable data, its exactly what we are seeing.

[nflwxman]

The next 20 years or so will be a good experiment to see if sensitivity could possibly  be near the low end of the

range due to ocean heat uptake changes.

 

figure5.png

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4

 

Climate sensitivity is estimated based on 0–2,000 m ocean heat content and surface temperature observations from the second half of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century, using a simple energy balance model and the change in the rate of ocean heat uptake to determine the radiative restoration strength over this time period. The relationship between this 30–50 year radiative restoration strength and longer term effective sensitivity is investigated using an ensemble of 32 model configurations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), suggesting a strong correlation between the two. The mean radiative restoration strength over this period for the CMIP5 members examined is 1.16 Wm⁻²K⁻¹, compared to 2.05 Wm⁻²K⁻¹from the observations. This suggests that temperature in these CMIP5 models may be too sensitive to perturbations in radiative forcing, although this depends on the actual magnitude of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the modern period. The potential change in the radiative restoration strength over longer timescales is also considered, resulting in a likely (67 %) range of 1.5–2.9 K for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a 90 % confidence interval of 1.2–5.1 K.

Agreed.  If the oceans continue to gather heat like they have been over the past 8 years or so they will have to revise down projections of surface warming and revise up thermal sea level rise.  There are many interesting studies on this exact topic.  Understanding all the forcing outside of greenhouse gasses will go a long way to helping us on climate sensitivity as well.  Time will continue to help us understand the fine details.

[tacoman25]

CO2 used to warm the atmosphere (supposedly), but during the hiatus it no longer does anymore. The ocean should receive heat today in a similar manner as when it used to warm the land surface, but it doesn't.

 

1880-1998 the Ocean and Surface warmed.

1998-2013 the Ocean warming rate slowed and the land warming rate nearly stalled.

 

That's not really debatable data, its exactly what we are seeing.

 

Right, it's not like the oceans are any different now than they used to be (aside from fluctuations like PDO and AMO phases), or that they weren't absorbing energy/heat before.

 

This thread is clearly about the slowdown/hiatus of surface warming compared to what was expected.

[nflwxman]

CO2 used to warm the atmosphere (supposedly), but during the hiatus it no longer does anymore. The ocean should receive heat today in a similar manner as when it used to warm the land surface, but it doesn't.

 

1880-1998 the Ocean and Surface warmed.

1998-2013 the Ocean warming rate slowed and the land warming rate nearly stalled.

 

That's not really debatable data, its exactly what we are seeing.

That's not really correct.  Again, you are using a 2-3 sigma event to create the hiatus, but ignoring the fact that the surface temperature continued to rise up to 2007 and then dropped off a bit recently with low solar and prominence of negative ENSO.  This is the problem with using short term trend lines.  

 

This is the image showing the GISS surface temperature data set between 1993-2007.  It is really fair to say that surface temperature warming just stopped in 1998?

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1993/to:2008/mean:12

 

 

This is an image from 1993-2013

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1993/to:2014/mean:12

 

 

As you can see the increased incidence of ENSO negative periods mixed with a dose of less forcing has dropped the temperature since 2007, effectively causing the hiatus period we see now.  Hence why short term trends are really not as important in climate science.  A 30-year trend is far less affected by adding a 5 year dip or rise in the data.

[tacoman25]

That's not really correct.  Again, you are using a 2-3 sigma event to create the hiatus, but ignoring the fact that the surface temperature continued to rise up to 2007 and then dropped off a bit recently with low solar and prominence of negative ENSO.  This is the problem with using short term trend lines.  

 

This is the image showing the GISS surface temperature data set between 1993-2007.  It is really fair to say that surface temperature warming just stopped in 1998?

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1993/to:2008/mean:12

 

 

This is an image from 1993-2013

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1993/to:2014/mean:12

 

 

As you can see the increased incidence of ENSO negative periods mixed with a dose of less forcing has dropped the temperature since 2007, effectively causing the hiatus period we see now.  Hence why short term trends are really not as important in climate science.  A 30-year trend is far less affected by adding a 5 year dip or rise in the data.

 

Again, starting from 1993 is just as problematic as starting from 1998. Pinatubo had cooled the earth significantly in 1993.

 

The slowdown in surface temp rise the past 10-15 years cannot just be attributed to ENSO trends.

[nflwxman]

Again, starting from 1993 is just as problematic as starting from 1998. Pinatubo had cooled the earth significantly in 1993.

 

The slowdown in surface temp rise the past 10-15 years cannot just be attributed to ENSO trends.

Agreed, but that was not the point I was making to Jonger.  

 

"As you can see the increased incidence of ENSO negative periods mixed with a dose of less forcing has dropped the temperature since 2007."  Many agree the forcing has not been as positive recently whether it's the sun or aerosols.

[Snow_Miser]

Here is an analysis of ENSO corrected trends for those interested. The flattening at the end is still evident.