Global warming “pause” may last for 20 more years

posted at 8:41 pm on November 5, 2013 by Bruce McQuain

Even though the “consensus” described in the IPCC report says it won’t.  Gee, who to believe – the IPCC who has been badly off the mark since it began reporting or other scientists who actually research the climate, like Prof. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech?

The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy. 

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases. 

Yeah, I’ll go with Prof. Curry if you don’t mind.

My favorite line from the article is one of vast understatement:

The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.

You think!?  They haven’t been close to correct for years.  In fact, they can’t even recreate the past with any fidelity.  Here’s the reality:

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend. 

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave,  in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years. 

According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it. 

It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave. 

‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035. 

Wyatt added: ‘The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum.’ The record low seen in 2012, followed by the large increase in 2013, is consistent with the theory, she said. 

So now we have a viable theory that doesn’t rely on forced and fudged numbers (or hiding the decline) and has a history of at least 300 years.

I imagine the “chicken little” crowd will ignore it as they ignore all studies that refute or at least question their insistence that man is the cause of any warming going on.  After all, if they don’t, if they admit their wrong, how in the world can government use their power of taxation to literally create revenue out of thin air?

Of course they can’t.  So they’ll ignore the new science and resort to calling those who are doing it and supporting it “deniers”, demonize them as ignorant neanderthals all the while conspiring to pass laws to relieve you of your money in the name of saving the world.

Just watch.

~McQ


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The amount that this report will slow down ALGORE, the media, and the rest of the hand wringing morons is exactly equal to Zero.

BigWyo on November 5, 2013 at 8:45 PM

So let’s mess up our economy right away.

rbj on November 5, 2013 at 8:45 PM

1941 War blamed for global warming.

Murphy9 on November 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Global warming “pause” may last for 20 more years.

These climate toadies can’t predict accurately whether it will rain the day after tomorrow, next Wednesday is a dartboard crapshoot…

Will Dr Heidi Cullen ‘weigh in’ on this with her esteemed opinion? / :D

BigSven on November 5, 2013 at 8:55 PM

But…but…..but THE HOCKEY STICK! Sob!

AGW isn’t “science”. It’s faith-based $cience.

GarandFan on November 5, 2013 at 8:56 PM

OR…they’re gonna be crowing about ‘See!! Our selfless commitment to ‘educating’ the public is WORKING!!!!’

Stand by for MOAR!!!

BigWyo on November 5, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Professor Singer had a viable theory thirty years ago. He predicted a pause at the end of the century of a MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE followed by a TEMPERATURE DECLINE.

burt on November 5, 2013 at 9:03 PM

These commies had a plan, the CO2 scam plus this ObamaCare scam and they were in power total, tax, spend and redistribute to the end….

but

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

and others Judith Curry etal…

Now it is our job to undo Obama’s crime/scam/fraud.

Push, Push, sue any one who enabled it.

These Ins Company guys who keep meeting with Obama do not have clean hands. Find the dirt. Use it.

Facts and truth win.

Lies die.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 5, 2013 at 9:14 PM

No more snow by 2010. Not one flake!

/2000

mankai on November 5, 2013 at 9:22 PM

When have no facts and can’t prove your theory… go with “consensus.”

mankai on November 5, 2013 at 9:23 PM

“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 Feynman

Never gets old.

Bat Chain Puller on November 5, 2013 at 9:32 PM

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

He was a intellectual beast.

Murphy9 on November 5, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Haven’t you heard….the new meme is that the heat has been absorbed by the ocean. These AGW believers are harder to follow than a hockey puck.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 5, 2013 at 9:40 PM

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness

Knott Buyinit on November 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM

The FACT is we don’t have nearly enough data to know what normal fluctuation in Arctic or Antarctic ice caps would be.

But the failure of models has always been a huge problem for the warmists. There are two ways to prove something in science: observing it in nature, or duplicating in the lab. The models are supposed to duplicate the theoretical warming, and they cannot.

Adjoran on November 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM

If the model can’t model what has happened, the model is worthless. Now perhaps we can get 100W bulbs again and stop wasting money on “green” buildings, cars, etc., etc., etc.!!!

Angineer on November 5, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Why did Al Gore in 2009 buy a $8,875,000 beachfront mansion in Montecito CA?

For the same reason all the leftist warmist celebrities keep buying outrageously expensive pads on the Malibu coast. Because they themselves, the very propagators of the alarmist propaganda, don’t believe for a moment their own scare mongering on sea level.

Look at the Malibu Beach estates…

For decades running the beach has been unchanged. NO sea level rise. Not even an inch, as far as what you can see anyways. Even the most seemingly fanatical warmist, when evaluating a $20,000,000 Malibu beach house purchase, would on the one hand be saying we are going to have 10 feet of sea level rise in the next 30 years, but on the other hand would know full well that come 2040 the beach in Malibu is going to look just the same as it does now, and as it did in 1970, so they go ahead and shell out the mega-bucks.

anotherJoe on November 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM

I don’t think humans have been observing and recording climate long enough to believe in this wave theory. The hoaxers would probably like to build it into their ‘models’, though. They’ll never be wrong if they can say some crazy wave is fouling up their predictions.

I guess the weather gods El Nino and La Nina are old and busted because I haven’t heard much about them for a few years. I wonder if they were ‘peer-reviewed’. I kind of doubt it because they completely changed the definition of what an El Nino was back in 1980. A peer reviewer might have an issue with that.

Buddahpundit on November 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Maybe in 20 years nobody will remember “Global Worming” and a lot of the guilty parties will be retired or dead.

mad scientist on November 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM

The computer models are OBVIOUSLY Tea Party racists.

orangemtl on November 5, 2013 at 10:26 PM

If you like your global warming, you can keep it.

VorDaj on November 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Since this is a David Rose Daily Fail article, I can just assume he has completely misunderstood and misquoted Dr. Curry’s article.

Hal_10000 on November 6, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Since this is a David Rose Daily Fail article, I can just assume he has completely misunderstood and misquoted Dr. Curry’s article.

Hal_10000 on November 6, 2013 at 12:05 AM

You have ample time and space to explain your assertion.

Murphy9 on November 6, 2013 at 12:13 AM

Since this is a David Rose Daily Fail article, I can just assume he has completely misunderstood and misquoted Dr. Curry’s article.
Hal_10000 on November 6, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Yeah, and we know what the movie “Bad News Bears” said about ASSUME.
Go right ahead, we’ll watch.

Marcola on November 6, 2013 at 12:50 AM

When does a ‘pause’ become a stop?

Axion on November 6, 2013 at 6:33 AM

Let me guess, grant seeking climate scientists still want their grants for the next 20 years (or longer) … right?

I must be a prophet.

Axion on November 6, 2013 at 6:37 AM

Can we please get a source for this that is more credible then the daily mail. I don’t think that’s too much to ask here.

Karmashock on November 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM

Can we please get a source for this that is more credible then the daily mail. I don’t think that’s too much to ask here.

Karmashock on November 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM

Are you assuming the editorial board did the research and published their results?

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Murphy9 on November 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM

http://www.research.gatech.edu/news/‘stadium-waves’-could-explain-lull-global-warming

‘Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming

Posted Oct 10, 2013 | Atlanta, GA

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’ that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Judith “Judy” Curry is a professor and the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (EAS) in the College of Sciences (CoS). Credit: Rob Felt.

A new paper published in a recent online edition of the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.

Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the ‘stadium wave.’ The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Previous work done by Wyatt on the ‘wave’ shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models’ inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.

“Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system,” Curry said.

The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse. After temperatures peaked in the late 1990s, hemispheric surface temperatures began to decrease, while the high latitudes of the North Atlantic Ocean continued to warm and Arctic sea ice extent continued to decline. According to the ‘stadium wave’ hypothesis, these trends mark a transition period whereby the future decades will see the North Atlantic Ocean begin to cool and sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic region begin to rebound.

Most interpretations of the recent decline in Arctic sea ice extent have focused on the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, with some allowance for natural variability. Declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal, and the wave’s continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.

“The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic,” Wyatt said. “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”

The stadium wave holds promise in putting into perspective numerous observations of climate behavior, such as regional patterns of decadal variability in drought and hurricane activity, the researchers say, but a complete understanding of past climate variability and projections of future climate change requires integrating the stadium-wave signal with external climate forcing from the sun, volcanoes and anthropogenic forcing.

“How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation,” Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability.”

Marcia Wyatt is an independent scientist. Judith Curry’s participation in this research was funded by a Department of Energy STTR grant under award number DE SC007554, awarded jointly to Georgia Tech and the Climate Forecast Applications Network. Any conclusions or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsoring agencies.

CITATION: M.G. Wyatt, et al., “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century,” (Climate Dynamics, 2013). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1

Research News
Georgia Institute of Technology
177 North Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0181 USA

Media Relations Contacts: Brett Israel (404-385-1933) (brett.israel@comm.gatech.edu) or John Toon (404-894-6986) (jtoon@gatech.edu)

Writer: Brett Israel

Murphy9 on November 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Sorry, I always get hysterical when someone mentions global warming.

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Can we please get a source for this that is more credible then the daily mail. I don’t think that’s too much to ask here.

Karmashock on November 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM

Maybe the New York Times, CNN, or perhaps MSNBC?

haha

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

The hoaxers would probably like to build it into their ‘models’, though. They’ll never be wrong if they can say some crazy wave is fouling up their predictions.

Buddahpundit on November 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM

It’s all crazy talk, I say!!!

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM

I like the way, when “Global Warming” started polling unfavorably, the flim-flam scientists saw a threat to their government teet sucking. So they took the same lie, and re-branded it as “Climate Change”.

haha

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:17 AM

A recent poll taken in Alaska, shows that 100% of all Eskimos are in favor of global warming.

It’s true, look it up.

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Maybe the New York Times, CNN, or perhaps MSNBC?

haha

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

How about that homeless guy sleeping on the grates near the Commerce Building? He probably knows more about climate change than any of the so called climatologists or news organizations.

Oldnuke on November 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Maybe the New York Times, CNN, or perhaps MSNBC?

haha

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

How about that homeless guy sleeping on the grates near the Commerce Building? He probably knows more about climate change than any of the so called climatologists or news organizations.

Oldnuke on November 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Are you saying those bums are NOT the climatologists???

JackM on November 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Republicans need to quit being anti-science. Nit-picking the handful of rogue scientists that are denialists (which is less than 5% of all scientists) to try and justify a point is a terrible stance…and a losing one at that.

Global warming is real. Science is NOT a liberal conspiracy.

In the case of Judith Curry her conclusions have been consistently proven incorrect. Details here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

Now, does that mean we endorse liberal solutions like higher taxation on carbon generation or cap-and-trade? Of course not. Global warming can be solved through free-market solutions that don’t cripple the economy. Republicans need to accept the very real problem of global warming and promote BETTER ideas of solving the issue than the failed policies of the liberals.

cdw070 on November 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Christie is a Conservative Republican. And a damn good one.

cdw070 on June 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM

lol

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/

lol

Murphy9 on November 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM