The temperature hiatus is back – or, it never went away

Posted: July 10, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, Measurement, media
Tags:

Pacific ocean [image credit: Wikipedia]

Pacific ocean [image credit: Wikipedia]


H/T GWPF
Let’s see if this new paper in the same journal as the ‘what hiatus?’ effort gets the same level of publicity as the other one, given that ‘Nieves et al…find substantially less warming in the top 100 m of the oceans in the current decade than in the previous one.’

If there is one topic that illustrates the state of climate science it is that of the so-called “pause” or hiatus – the observational fact that global surface annual average temperatures, as well as satellite data on the lower troposphere, hasn’t changed for a decade or more.


Many scientists have explanations for it, and there is the problem, too many explanations. There are over 30 suggestions at a conservative estimate ranging from the “it doesn’t exist,” to the oceans, volcanoes, stratosphere and almost everything in-between. Some scientists see the “pause” as a fascinating event that sheds light on the interplay between natural climatic variations and forced climatic changes, others strongly, sometimes too strongly, insist it doesn’t exist at all. In the battle for catch phrases that will stick it’s been called a “faux pause” as if so many other scientists were stupid and misguided to have ever entertained the idea in the first place.

Last month a paper in Science by Karl et al 2015 received a lot of publicity because, despite having the word “possible” in its title, many journalists and commentators, as well as some scientists who consider themselves to be a little of both, suggested that a revision in ocean temperature measurements removed the “pause” altogether. The paper was heralded as definitive, the last word, the “pause” was an artefact, busted.

Full report: The Temperature Hiatus … Back Again | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

GWPF summary:
There is also no evidence for the much-raised suggestion by Kevin Trenberth that the ocean’s “missing heat” lies beneath 700 m. In fact, according to this paper, nothing much at all is happening below 700 m.

As far as the ocean surface temperature and the upper ocean heat content are concerned the “pause” or hiatus is definitely present.

Nieves et al say that the observational heat estimates do not reveal any obvious hiatus. They suggest that since the early 90s there has been a steady rate of ocean heat uptake. Other studies have proposed that the net ocean heat uptake was reduced during the 00s.

Overall Nieves et al opt for an explanation for the “pause” or hiatus being a result of the redistribution of heat within the ocean, rather than a change in the net warming rate. However, given the uncertainties I don’t think that this paper lives up to its self-proclaimed “most definitive explanation of how the heat was redistributed” during the hiatus.

Comments
  1. “No warming pause?
    Now there’s a surprise!
    Paris must be coming,
    So bring on the lies.
    The weather recorded
    Doesn’t fit with the plan;
    Adjust temperature records,
    Keep blaming man…..”

    http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/no-warming-pause-now-theres-a-surprise/

  2. oldbrew says:

    No sign of this paper in the Guardian, unsurprisingly.
    Instead they claim numerous major US cities will be knee deep in sea-level rises by 2050.
    Storm damage around the world to cost ‘trillions’, blah blah…

    What are they smoking?

  3. markstoval says:

    “What are they smoking?”

    It is a combination of things they are smoking. The tobacco is a mixture containing grants, popularity, tenure, prestige, power, self-satisfaction, siding with the angels (or is that playing the angles?), orders from the government masters, and many other things that minions of the state have always done.

    Note: I am sure I left out stuff as this was just off the top of my head.

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    OK, I found the real reason for the pause, and it takes a little digging into temperature records.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/when-is-it-warming-the-real-reason-for-the-pause/

  5. oldbrew says:

    Note the trend in dire predictions now seems to favour dates far into the future e.g. 2050.

    This conveniently puts them beyond the career end dates of the forecasters, which could be interpreted as the coward’s way out IMO. On the other hand they may have noticed the climate models were all absurdly aggressive in their warming ‘projections’.

    And what warmist wants to be reminded of their dodgy predictions, like that of Professor Wadhams?

    Under the headline: ‘Arctic sea ice ‘to melt by 2015’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/8877491/Arctic-sea-ice-to-melt-by-2015.html

  6. ren says:

    Growing cosmic rays. This will cause the polar vortex disturbances.

  7. Here is what I think explains all the temperature changes since the Holocene Optimum – Present. This conforms to what the data shows rather then having the data conforming to the theory as AGW demands.

    The only thing that matters is being correct and for the correct reasons. Along those lines Ian had a great prediction on this El Nino before it occurred and that is where it is at. It is as is par for the course how his prediction is being down played by the establishment. Why? Because it is a threat to AGW theory just like what I present below is a threat to AGW theory.

    I have to conclude the moon has a role in tall of this as well which I did not mention in my article below. I think lunar/geo-magnetic field effects upon the climate are the two most neglected possible climate items. In my case I was neglecting lunar possible contributions to the climate while others I think are neglecting the geo magnetic field of the earth and it’s contribution to the climate.

    I maintain weak solar/geo magnetic fields will equate to a colder climate, amongst the other items I mention in my piece below..

    The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.
    Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC

    edhoskins says which is spot on.

    Going forward the long term climate drivers Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability (secondary effects),and these factors which moderate the first two factors those being , Geo Magnetic Field Strength (enhancing solar variability when weak)., Land /Ocean Arrangements., Ice Dynamic are all in an overall cooling pattern since the Holocene Optimum.

    The warm periods since the Holocene Optimum being tied to solar variability which is superimposed upon the general climatic trend. MEDIEVAL ,ROMAN warm periods to name two.

    Further refinement to the temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum ,coming from ENSO, PDO/AMO phase and Volcanic Activity.

    I would say all the above when combined and superimposed upon one another can account for all of the climatic changes since the Holocene Optimum – Present Day.

    Therefore going forward the trend in the global temperature should be down as soon as the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and solar activity in general remains at sub-solar levels which it has been since 2005, and approaches my low average value solar parameters going forward, with a sufficient duration of time at or around these values.

    Solar Flux 90 or less, AP index 5.0 or less, Solar Wind 350 km or less to name some of them.

    These values much above these levels during the maximum of solar cycle 24 through today , although the maximum of solar cycle 24 is very weak, however the balance of this decade going forward should feature these low solar parameter readings as the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 ends ,and once this is takes place I fully expect the global temperature trend to be in a jig saw down trend.

    The latest temperature data keeps intact what I say in the above which is CO2 has no effect upon the temperature, it is all ENSO,PDO/AMO ,and Volcanic Activity driven (short term climatic factors) which are superimposed over the longer term climatic factors, which I mentioned in the above which now all point to cooling going forward.

    For all the talk about AGW it has done nothing to bring us into a new climatic regime ,we are simply in the same climatic regime post the Dalton Minimum , with climate variability associated with the 11 year rhythmic solar cycle ,pdo/amo phase, volcanic activity and enso.

    For the big picture Milankovitch Cycles(favorable for cooling on balance in contrast to 8000 years ago), the weakening Geo Magnetic Field and the switch from active to inactive solar activity post 2005 will work to bring the climate into a cooler and possibly a climatic regime change, maybe back to Dalton conditions.

    Land /Ocean arrangements so very favorable for cooling ,and the Ice Dynamic in the S.H. becoming very interesting.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    Every week for years people who don’t understand sun-climate relations have been telling us the temperature is about to catastrophically crash.

    …and then there’s observations:

    We’re also currently in the upswing of the bidecadal oscillation (BDO).

  9. ren says:

    Shanghai is endangered.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Judith Curry says the Nieves et al paper ‘is just what I have been waiting for, an integrative look at global ocean data in recent decades’
    http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/09/recent-hiatus-caused-by-decadal-shift-in-indo-pacific-heating-2/

    ‘This paper lays out a challenge not only for ocean reanalysis, but for also improving model treatment of vertical heat transfer in the ocean.’

    ‘It will be interesting to see how (or if) this paper plays out in the mainstream media.’

    Indeed. Does the phrase ‘lead balloon‘ fit the bill?

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB it’s astonishing how clueless she is most days …and don’t assume she remembers anything. For example the other day she announced she had forgotten about OI SST. Sent to infiltrate and sabotage with cluelessness? That would be flattering… I think once in awhile we should just take off the filters and speak our minds openly: I’m filled with disgust that this is supposedly the best on offer. Whenever / if ever you guys are ready for some really hard truth-speaking there’s another character deserving of… ok I’m stopping there for now.

  12. oldbrew says:

    ‘she announced she had forgotten about OI SST’

    A bit embarrassing perhaps, but better than pretending to be an infallible warmist at least.

  13. edhoskins says:

    Even the coming century is pretty short in terms of Climate Change. The big longer term picture is more informative.

    Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    The usual lengths of past interglacial periods are 10,000 – 11,000 years, so the Holocene epoch could well be drawing to its close. A climate reversion to full, encroaching, glaciation is therefore foreseeable, if not overdue, in this century, the next century, or this millennium.

    Looking at climate change from a century by century or on a millennial perspective and using but reducing it to century and millennial averages the overall millennial difference during the Holocene since ~8000BC has in total been a cooling of ~-1.8°C.

    Ice core data shows the early Holocene encompassing the “Climate Optimum” of ~ 7000BC and lasting for about 7000 years has been relatively constant with a temperature loss of only about -0.05 degC per millennium.

    However since 1000BC up to the present day the temperature drop was at about 10 times that rate at ~0.5degC / millennium.

    The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.

    Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC.
    The scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions, the much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures back to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

    If it were possible to reach the “potentially horrendous” level of +6°C postulated by Warmists, that extreme level would still only bring temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum. The world has been there before and survived.

    Current Modern warming does not even bring temperatures back to those of the Medieval warm period.

    Already the most recent 3 millennia which have experienced accelerated cooling, a continued natural climate change towards a colder climate would now seem more, rather than less, likely.

    In other words, viewed in historical context, all policy decisions to curtail warming are facing in exactly the wrong direction.

    see
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

  14. PAUL – I do not think we are going to have to wait as long as you suggest, IF the solar parameters become low enough, and the secondary effects kick in.

    Time will tell.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    85% of the variance is Sun-Climate 101 (SC101) (82 or 83%) plus the bidecadal oscillation (BDO) (2 or 3%).

    The remaining 15% is outlined here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/paul-vaughan-sun-climate-101-solar-terrestrial-primer/comment-page-1/#comment-101968

    The key to closing the budget is to look at ENSO both traditionally and interhemispherically. That was the nut I finished cracking this morning. It finishes accounting for the remaining 15% and it was one of those “why the f*** didn’t we think of that before?” moments. I left a related note over here:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/noaa-tries-to-make-global-warming-slowdown-vanish/comment-page-1/#comment-103632

    Thank God for MEI. Without MEI I may never have recognized NIN.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sneak NIN previews:



    In summary:
    Interhemispheric land-ocean circulatory (net surface heat flux) contrast.

    The pattern is a function of the following:
    • solar cycle (including pacing — not just cumulative amplitude — since there are spatially asymmetric temporal rates of equilibration) (11.06602004 & SCD)
    • solar barycentric speed (9.932517933, 19.86503587, 61.04648218)
    • solar barycentric radial acceleration (12.78279303)

    Dickey & Keppenne (NASA JPL 1997) outlined the cyclic volatility attractor (at the intersection of semi-annual equator-pole & annual interhemispheric heat engines):
    (12.78279303)*(11.06602004) / (12.78279303 – 11.06602004) = 82.39566

    How does Jupiter-Saturn (bidecadal & “60 year”) attach to the D&K heat engine framework?
    (11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218
    (11.06602004)*(9.932517933) / (11.06602004 – 9.932517933) = 96.96800912
    (12.78279303)*(9.932517933) / (12.78279303 – 9.932517933) = 44.54493571
    (96.96800912)*(44.54493571) / (96.96800912 – 44.54493571) = 82.39566
    (96.96800912)*(61.04648218) / (96.96800912 – 61.04648218) = 164.79132
    (61.04648218)*(44.54493571) / (61.04648218 – 44.54493571) = 164.79132

    Landscheidt & Scafetta were looking at (among other things) the right factors.
    I just don’t recall either of them finishing the analysis by breaking it down INTERHEMISPHERICALLY by BALANCING THERMALLY across the thermal equator.

    One of Polya’s problem-solving tips:
    USE SYMMETRY.

    After I illustrate where & how NIN & MEI show up, people will see the high-frequency spatial structure clearly. Then if at that point they still remain lukewarm, we’ll award them a “head in the sand” trophy for their lusty devotion to doing dirty work for alarmists.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    This isn’t about adding cycles together. It’s about aggregation criteria.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    All of the mainstream methodological philosophies are based on making FALSE assumptions about spatiotemporal variance structure. This is about diagnosing bad assumptions. It’s directly analogous with a lesson on Simpson’s Paradox (something many students struggle or fail to understand).

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Is the pause over?

    The question can be answered from several perspectives:

    • Bidecadal Oscillation (BDO):
    Yes, but….

    • South of Thermal Equator (Sunspot Integral = RI):
    Doesn’t look like it …but some people will misinterpret the contribution of BDO no doubt.

    • North of Thermal Equator (Solar Cycle Deceleration = SCD):
    There hasn’t even been a pause …unless one wants to pretend the BDO bite into SCD isn’t BDO.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    We’re warming …but it’s natural and it’s caused by (1) the sun & (2) BDO (bidecadal oscillation).

  21. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘we’ll award them a “head in the sand” trophy for their lusty devotion to doing dirty work for alarmists’

  22. oldbrew says:

    Bob Tisdale notes: ‘It’s hard to believe that Nieves et al. discuss and present the ocean heat uptake of the Pacific Ocean but fail to provide anything more than a brief mention of ENSO.’

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    EOP (earth orientation parameter) experts looking at the interwar escalator ~1910-1940 here should plot the following against ERSSTv3b2 PC4:
    1. LOD
    2. LOD lagged by BDO/2 = 9.932517933 years (where BDO = Jupiter-Saturn)
    The Chandler wobble wasn’t the only geophysical parameter that reversed phase during rapid deceleration. (Tip: before & after phasing)

  24. oldbrew says:

    PV: ‘(11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218

    2408 x 61.04648218 = 146999.93 years i.e. ~100 x 1470 years
    That gives near-exact numbers of orbits of J(12392), N(892) and S(4992).
    Divide by 100 and they all end in ‘.92’, hence the line-up below.

    From an earlier thread:
    PV: 74 * (J-S) ~= 115 * (J-N) ~= 41 * (S-N) ~= 1470
    ‘As illustrated in the BDO thread, these also align uniquely with the terrestrial year, so there’s something orders of magnitude more special about 1470 than what was previously realized.’
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/why-phi-jupiter-saturn-and-the-de-vries-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-99982
    12392 J – 4992 S = 7400 J-S (74 x 100)
    12392 J – 892 N = 11500 J-N (115 x 100)
    4992 S – 892 N = 4100 S-N (41 x 100)
    [NB all the above numbers re 1470 are divisible by 4, except 61.04648218]

    What is the 61.04648218 years? It’s the average time taken for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction to move 360 degrees retrograde, similar to the astrological period known as a ‘trigon’. See the Kepler graphic here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction#Great_Conjunctions_and_history

    This was touched on in the recent de Vries cycle thread:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/why-phi-jupiter-saturn-and-the-de-vries-cycle/

    If we look at the diagram below from that thread, the number of retrograde J-S revolutions is 126 – 85 = 41.
    Then: 2503y / 41 = 61.04878y i.e. almost the same as Paul Vaughan’s number.
    The reason for the very slight difference is that 126 J-S is a shade over 41 x 360 degrees of retrograde movement (about 0.525 degrees more).

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clarification — this will be important for anyone who didn’t realize:

    The “Thermal Equator” I’ve been referring to is the CLIMATOLOGICAL thermal equator.

    It occurred to me during the past half-hour that there may be some audience members who may not have realized that intuitively …in which case they may have been misinterpreting graphs I’ve been sharing during the past few weeks.

    So let me make sure people are interpreting correctly:

    The thermal equator migrated RAPIDLY meridionally on the interwar escalator (~1910-1940).

    EOP experts should easily recognize that changes in the annual cycles of residual nutation in (a) obliquity & (b) longitude are tightly coherent (coupling is clear) with this northward climatological domino effect.

    The frequencies aren’t lunisolar. Their heliocentric & barycentric. At the time when I tailored a 2011 paper for informal presentation at wuwt, my judgement & projection had been nudged by thought-policing based on theoretical assumptions, but I’ve since completely divorced my thinking from thought-policing assumptions that are inconsistent with observation.

    They’re going after the observations now because they realize some of us are thoroughly hardened against false theoretical assumptions.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    …and taking even more care to avoid misunderstandings:
    What do I mean by “climatological”?
    I’m talking about the average annual cycle, typically based on a 30 year period according to mainstream convention.

    OB: There’s more on 208 & 1470 when time permits.
    [reply] noted, thanks.

  27. oldbrew says:

    1470 years is also a Uranus-Earth conjunction period – or half-period.
    83 x 35 U-E = 84 x 35 years = 2940 years = 1470 x 2

    So every other 1470 years there will be a U-E inferior conjunction, and 1470 years later a U-E superior conjunction. Here we see it coinciding with the J-S-N triple conjunctions.