How Long Will the Hiatus Period Last?

[Jonger]

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.

 

 

Its all where you start and finish the graph.

 

[smerby]

The hiatus should last into the 2030s based on the correlation between decadal PDO cycles and global surface temperatures. The current hiatus is right on schedule. 

 

Smerby

[Snow_Miser]

Its all where you start and finish the graph.

 

giss.jpg

 

Because 1993 is a cool spot in the graph, starting there should give an accelerated warming. Yet, even that accelerated warming is less than half of what climate models predict.

 

The reason being is that the models failed to take into consideration that a significant fraction of the late-20th Century warming was naturally induced, thus they will be running too warm for a while to come.

 

 

As Bob Tisdale writes: 

 

"It’s very obvious that climate modelers, under the direction of the IPCC, simply tuned their models to the high rate of warming from one half of a multidecadal “cycle” without considering the other counterbalancing or offsetting portion of the “cycle”."

 

Perhaps this is why Chylek et al. 2013 found that the modeled SW US temperatures were too sensitive to CO2 by a factor of 2. 

[SVT450R]

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.

The reason for this is the -PDO phase just like the warming seen in the 80s-90s was contributed by +PDO phase with more positive ENSO occurring.  If in case this hiatus is truly mostly PDO dominant then it wouldn't be surprising to see this continue for at least another decade maybe two.  Additionally the effects of low solar that looks to continue and the AMO heading into it's negative regime will add to this.

[nflwxman]

The reason for this is the -PDO phase just like the warming seen in the 80s-90s was contributed by +PDO phase with more positive ENSO occurring.  If in case this hiatus is truly mostly PDO dominant then it wouldn't be surprising to see this continue for at least another decade maybe two.  Additionally the effects of low solar that looks to continue and the AMO heading into it's negative regime will add to this.

 

 

What would be the physical mechanism of the PDO phase halting the surface warming until it flips?  La Ninas now are warmer than La Ninas 15 years ago and I expect the same to happen in 10 years down the line with increased forcing.  Assuming that we remain in the PDO- phase (which we should for a while) and the average ENSO value remains around the 2008-2013 levels wouldn't the additional forcing still bring up the temperature form 2008-2013 levels?  Am I missing something?

 

1945-1975 is a tough time to correlate to the surface temperatures given all the random aerosols in the air.

[Snow_Miser]

What would be the physical mechanism of the PDO phase halting the surface warming until it flips? La Ninas now are warmer than La Ninas 15 years ago and I expect the same to happen in 10 years down the line with increased forcing. Assuming that we remain in the PDO- phase (which we should for a while) and the average ENSO value remains around the 2008-2013 levels (75% negative) wouldn't the additional forcing still bring up the temperature form 2008-2013 levels? Am I missing something?

1945-1975 is a tough time to correlate to the surface temperatures given all the random aerosols in the air.

Roy Spencer speculated that a change in the atmospheric circulation associated with the PDO could cause a 1-2% change in cloudiness and thus modulate temperature trends.

[tacoman25]

Roy Spencer speculated that a change in the atmospheric circulation associated with the PDO could cause a 1-2% change in cloudiness and thus modulate temperature trends.

 

Not sure about this, but I know that during +ENSO heat is expelled from the Pacific at greater rates, while during -ENSO heat is absorbed at higher rates.

[Snow_Miser]

This might also be relevant:

 

[Jonger]

Its all where you start and finish the graph.

 

giss.jpg

 

Because 1993 is a cool spot in the graph, starting there should give an accelerated warming. Yet, even that accelerated warming is less than half of what climate models predict.

 

The reason being is that the models failed to take into consideration that a significant fraction of the late-20th Century warming was naturally induced, thus they will be running too warm for a while to come.

 

 

As Bob Tisdale writes: 

 

"It’s very obvious that climate modelers, under the direction of the IPCC, simply tuned their models to the high rate of warming from one half of a multidecadal “cycle” without considering the other counterbalancing or offsetting portion of the “cycle”."

 

Perhaps this is why Chylek et al. 2013 found that the modeled SW US temperatures were too sensitive to CO2 by a factor of 2. 

I would still let the warmers lobby and persuade lawmakers to curb CO2, but behind the scenes we know the news is quite a bit better than previously thought.

[skierinvermont]

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

 

 

This is only through 2009. Since you post this image a lot, why not bookmark my updated version that goes all the way to the present?

[skierinvermont]

Because 1993 is a cool spot in the graph, starting there should give an accelerated warming. Yet, even that accelerated warming is less than half of what climate models predict.

 

The reason being is that the models failed to take into consideration that a significant fraction of the late-20th Century warming was naturally induced, thus they will be running too warm for a while to come.

 

 

As Bob Tisdale writes: 

 

"It’s very obvious that climate modelers, under the direction of the IPCC, simply tuned their models to the high rate of warming from one half of a multidecadal “cycle” without considering the other counterbalancing or offsetting portion of the “cycle”."

 

Perhaps this is why Chylek et al. 2013 found that the modeled SW US temperatures were too sensitive to CO2 by a factor of 2. 

 

1. Did you not read the Fyfe study? The models include Pinatubo which is why they predict a whopping .3C/decade from 1993-2013. Did it not occur to you that there was probably a reason the models predicted a whopping .3C/decade??? So claiming that "even over this accelerated period we warmed less than half the model prediction" is extremely misleading.

 

 

2. The models are based on physics. They don't "fail to take into account that the late 20th century warming was partially naturally produce." 

 

3. Climate models do show multi-decadal variability. Tisdale just erases this variability by looking solely at the ensemble mean. This is extremely misleading. Climate models do not project continual monotonous warming. There are frequent periods of 10+ years of no surface warming. 

[skierinvermont]

Roy Spencer speculated that a change in the atmospheric circulation associated with the PDO could cause a 1-2% change in cloudiness and thus modulate temperature trends.

 

Roy Spencer speculated blah blah blah Roy Spencer Democrats are evil anti-christs Roy Spencer blah blah blah they want to destroy god blah blah

 

is there the slightest shred of evidence for this "speculation?"

 

No.

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

But remember, there is some uncertainty with the OHC data so be careful interpreting short-term trends.

 

 

I think you are correct, the slower warming at not just the surface but also in OHC is very important to recognize. This is why the PDO/ENSO/deep ocean absorption explanations fall short of explaining the slowdown at the surface.

 

But there is good evidence that partially explains the slowdown in OHC warming (solar minimum and increased stratospheric aerosols) and uncertainty that could explain the remainder (tropospheric aerosols). 

 

So the slowdown does not disprove high climate sensitivity 3-4C. But I'll be honest, I think it helps weight the probability towards the lower side (2-3C). 

[skierinvermont]

No, there is nothing political about AGW at all. :$

 

No, there isn't much political about AGW science. Which is why I put no stock in "speculation" by a political figure like Roy Spencer.

[forkyfork]

how uncertain is OHC data? i don't see much of a hiatus here

[Jonger]

No, there is nothing political about AGW at all. :$

 

No, there isn't much political about AGW science. Which is why I put no stock in "speculation" by a political figure like Roy Spencer.

I deleted that post, but I won't run from the idea that this is trumped up by left wing causes for secondary reasons.

[Jonger]

how uncertain is OHC data? i don't see much of a hiatus here

0-2000M data before 2003 is awful, 0-700 changed course drastically as well when ARGO started churning out data.

But you go ahead and form your argument around this tweaked, reconstructed garbage.

[skierinvermont]

how uncertain is OHC data? i don't see much of a hiatus here

 

 

Actually this is a good point.. the jump up in OHC over the last year is going to increase the 10-15 year trends substantially. I think many are still stuck in the mindset of the trend calculations from a year or two ago. Including the last year of data, there's not much of a slowdown at all.

[skierinvermont]

0-2000M data before 2003 is awful, 0-700 changed course drastically as well when ARGO started churning out data. But you go ahead and form your argument around this tweaked, reconstructed garbage.

 

 

The 0-2000m data before 2003 is not awful, as has been explained to you a dozen times by me, ORH, and others. 

 

Plus, how do you explain the continuing rapid rise in 0-2000m OHC during a solar minimum (during the ARGO period which you acknowledge is accurate)?

[Jonger]

how uncertain is OHC data? i don't see much of a hiatus here

Actually this is a good point.. the jump up in OHC over the last year is going to increase the 10-15 year trends substantially. I think many are still stuck in the mindset of the trend calculations from a year or two ago. Including the last year of data, there's not much of a slowdown at all.

So did land temps reach an equilibrium? Or does CO2 not effect the land as much as it used to? which is it.

[skierinvermont]

For example Levitus et al 2012 (the source of forky's graph) find that the 14X10^22 Joules that accumulated 1990-2009 equates to a rate of uptake at 

 

.45W/m2 (including other sources of uptake the total earth imbalance might be .55W/m2)

 

 

If we look at the last 4 years however, OHC has risen another 4X10^22 Joules. This suggests the rate of uptake the last 4 years has been .65W/m2. 

 

This brings the 1990-2013 average up to .51W/m2 from .45W/m2. 

[skierinvermont]

So did land temps reach an equilibrium? Or does CO2 not effect the land as much as it used to? which is it.

 

I don't understand your question, can you rephrase this?

 

OHC has resumed a rapid rise the last 4 years (with an especially large jump in the last year). This simply demonstrates that the earth is warming and both land and ocean temperatures will continue warming. 

 

 

All else equal, if OHC rises surface temperatures will fall, and vice-versa.

 

Hopefully that answers the question?

[skierinvermont]

I fully expect the continuing rise on OHC will cause you cognitive dissonance Jonger and you will either find some way to not fully understand the implications of this fact, or you will now fantasize away all OHC data and not just pre-ARGO data.

[Snow_Miser]

This is only through 2009. Since you post this image a lot, why not bookmark my updated version that goes all the way to the present?

 

Your trend still shows a flattening of the ENSO adjusted record towards the end of the dataset. There is more than just ENSO that is responsible for the pause.

[Snow_Miser]

1. Did you not read the Fyfe study? The models include Pinatubo which is why they predict a whopping .3C/decade from 1993-2013. Did it not occur to you that there was probably a reason the models predicted a whopping .3C/decade??? So claiming that "even over this accelerated period we warmed less than half the model prediction" is extremely misleading.

 

 

2. The models are based on physics. They don't "fail to take into account that the late 20th century warming was partially naturally produce." 

 

3. Climate models do show multi-decadal variability. Tisdale just erases this variability by looking solely at the ensemble mean. This is extremely misleading. Climate models do not project continual monotonous warming. There are frequent periods of 10+ years of no surface warming. 

 

1. Did it not occur to you that the model response to this recovery from Pinatubo was too high? Did it not occur to you that it was too high by over a factor of two? Did it not occur to you that this may suggest that the models are not responding correctly to changes in radiative forcing?

 

2. The models do not simulate the early-20th Century warming rate well at all. This is because the change in radiative forcing in the early-20th Century was substantially smaller than in the late-20th Century, thus the significantly smaller rate in temperature change in the models than in the late-20th Century. In reality, the early-20th Century warming and the late-20th Century warming are comparable in rate. This would suggest that the models do not simulate multidecadal variability very well, and thus do not take into account natural variability contributing to the late-20th Century warming.

 

 

 

The models also do not reproduce Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice trends very well either. It underestimates the Arctic Sea Ice loss, and completely misses the sign of change in the Southern Hemisphere. This to me suggests that the Bipolar Seesaw variability is not well captured in the models.

 

 

3. See above. Climate Models did not predict the multidecadal shifts associated with the PDO/AMO, and do not simulate the Sea Ice trends well, thus do not handle internal variability very well. 

[Snow_Miser]

Roy Spencer speculated blah blah blah Roy Spencer Democrats are evil anti-christs Roy Spencer blah blah blah they want to destroy god blah blah

 

is there the slightest shred of evidence for this "speculation?"

 

No.

 

Good to see that you have nothing. It was just a suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[tacoman25]

how uncertain is OHC data? i don't see much of a hiatus here

 

 

As already pointed out multiple times, this thread was clearly about surface temps. See the references to model projections in the original post...they were for global surface temps.

[ORH_wxman]

If the 0-2000m OHC numbers form Levitus are correct, then we should expect a pretty big spike in surface temperatures within the next 4-6 years as the most rapid rises in OHC are generally followed by rapid increase in sfc temps. Most notably the spike in the 1970s was followed by rapid warming from late 1970s to early 1980s before El Chicon and the late 1980s/early 1990s rise followed by rapid warming the 1990s (probably delayed a bit by Pinatubo).

 

 

The most recent period of post-1998 El Nino rise in 0-2000m OHC should produce a pretty good temp rise at the surface this decade. I have my doubts, but that is generally what we should expect if we go by the past OHC data provided to us.

[skierinvermont]

Good to see that you have nothing. It was just a suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

I'm not the one trying to assert a positive theory. I don't need to provide evidence to disprove speculation which has no evidence.

[skierinvermont]

Your trend still shows a flattening of the ENSO adjusted record towards the end of the dataset. There is more than just ENSO that is responsible for the pause.

 

Indeed it does. I am simply suggesting you provide the most up to date data available to you. 2009 is pretty out of date for data that can be obtained real-time.