Science journalist Axel Bojanowski at the online Spiegel writes a report on the warming stop, reaffirming that it indeed has stopped for 16 years. But at the same time the article says, citing NASA, we that could see a record warm 2014. The heat is out there, somewhere.
Interestingly, Spiegel now says it’s the atmosphere near the surface that has paused, and not the globe or climate. 10 years ago, on the other hand, atmospheric warming was called global warming.
More than 97% of all models are wrong
The big questions is why the near-surface atmosphere has not warmed like all the models said it would. Spiegel writes:
Computer models did not predict the development. Only three of 114 climate simulations have correctly shown the trend of the last years, summed up the UNIPCC in September in its fifth assessment report.”
A variety of possible explanations
The reason for the pause, Spiegel writes, is unknown. Spiegel describes 5 different reasons: 1) drying out of the upper atmospheric layers, 2) Pacific oscillations, 3) weak solar activity, 4) increased levels of aerosols and 5) well, warming hasn’t really stopped – a gap in Arctic data is concealing the warming.
And in almost every case, data are sorely lacking and so no sound conclusions can be drawn. This is the state of the science that scientists claim is more than 95% certain. We notice that all the warming still remains hidden in model projections, oceans and missing data. They tell us it’s there, but they just haven’t measured it yet.
NASA moves the goal posts to 30 years
Spiegel then cites NASA in claiming that 16 years are not enough after all, and that at least 30 years are needed.
Temperature developments over a few years are in any case not sufficient to establish a trend says NASA: Data from at least 30 years are necessary.
Will 2014 be hottest ever?
Next Spiegel writes about NASA’s prediction that 2014 may be the globe’s hottest year ever, but that it depends on the ENSO. Spiegel writes:
A new El Niño could put 2014 at the top, NASA explained – also the 16-year temperature trend could once again head upwards.”
That makes perfect sense: 16 years is not a trend, but one single year can make a whole new warming trend!
Overall it was an overly warmist article from the somewhat usually a bit more skeptical Bojanowski. The editorial desk must be pressuring him.
29 responses to “Spiegel Reaffirms Warming Stop: “Climate: Warming Of the Atmosphere Has Paused 16 Years””
For 4), there has been no global increase in aerosols. 5), there has been no arctics warming. All the surface station warming is UHI.
So i guess the 1978- 1998 trend is too short to account for a ‘climat’ trend….
“NASA moves the goal posts to 30 years
Spiegel then cites NASA in claiming that 16 years are not enough after all, and that at least 30 years are needed.”
Please all go around tell everyone that NASA has now publically dismissed Global Warming alarmism, as there was never a 30 year period of such warming.
Tell especially NASA employee Gavin Schmidt, and his German buddy Rahmstorff.
Let me clarify. The IPCC claim that human produced co2 only started to induce ‘forcing’ on the climat after 1950.
There is ample ducumentation of the cooling trend 1950-1975, wich now have been ‘adjusted’ to look like a plateau.
If you add the ‘statistically significant’ warming trend from the 1970’s, we are getting close to equal lenght of ‘statistically significant’ ‘pause’ from 1998 to now.
This will be fan.
Martin Rasmussen Copernicus-Censorship-Affair will have a boomerang effect against him.
I think that he did not realized that with his very action he put discredit on the credibility of the German scientific community which he demonstrated to be not free to investigate scientific issues regarding climate change despite the empirical evidences that also in Germany are now being acknowledged.
I fear that German scientists will be quite upset against Rasmussen while the rest of the world will laugh at him and to them.
“Spiegel then cites NASA in claiming that 16 years are not enough after all, and that at least 30 years are needed. ”
What then would you call a 20 (non-concurent) year “trend”?
…oh yeah, “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”
Ah well we can give them 0.1 deg C per decade for now
I’m optimistic we stay within Schellnhuber’s 2 deg C “guard rails” within this century. In the meantime we should ask them what the desired optimal average temperature of the globe is, in absolute terms.
First, I am giving them nothing. 1934-1939 & 1987-2000 is all they get as those are the only times temperatures have risen.
Second, wanna see something extremely cool but never mentioned?
That is the U.S. from 1930-1998 (the El Nino year)
That is the U.S. from (post ’98 El Nino) 1999-2013
The only “Warming” the U.S. has seen since 1930 came in 1998, when temperatures spiked (and stayed) during El Nino. 84 years, and we have 1 year of so-called “Warming” – otherwise the U.S. has been as flat as you can possibly get it for the 69 years leading up to that El Nino, and a downward trend after
I don’t know about you, but that sure doesn’t fit my visualization of what “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming” should look like
Case in point: The claim that there’s been no global warming for the past 16 years . This is blatantly untrue, a ridiculous and obviously false statement. But I see it over and again online, in Op Eds, and in comments to climate change posts.
Trisha, you can use woodfortrees as well. Try it, it’s fun!
Okay, so The datasets are wrong and you’re right.
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
Trisha M. Kline says,
“Case in point: The claim that there’s been no global warming for the past 16 years . This is blatantly untrue, a ridiculous and obviously false statement”
Yeah, and really makes you wonder why the NOAA, the IPCC, the Met and about every single Alarmist (who are currently desperately trying to ‘explain’ the ‘pause/stall’ coming up with new excuses daily …generally even focusing on Natural Cycles, ironically. Well okay, they also somehow seriously say ‘maybe the hot air skipped the atmosphere and surface and jumped straight to the deep oceans,’ but come on…) would keep saying it, being as it is such an obviously ridiculously false statement and everything!
Apparently none of those organizations or Scientists have access to whatever superior data you obviously have.
“Global Warming Standstill: The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.”
…stupid, NASA! Right?
Wishing is not fact !!
Trisha…if an industry has enough money…..say an industry like the oil/gas/coal industrys now…….they will say or do what is only in their best interests.
Here is snipet from tobacco industry using the same strategy:
Fast forward to today….and you see the coal/oil/gas industrys doing the same thing with global warming. They even pay for some websites to intentionally mislead and lie about it.
The facts just won’t go away, however. The earth continues to warm, the glaciers continue to melt, the seas continue to rise.
Buddy, you can use woodfortrees as well! Try it, it’s fun!
BTW Buddy, what is the optimal absolute global average temperature of the Earth? As warm as now? Warmer? Cooler?
I would like to see your list of sites that are paid by the coal, oil, and gas industries to mislead. The amounts would be useful also. If you can’t supply, shut up.
5 possible reasons, eh? Well Axel, what is the evidence for each then?
Good question! Strangely most of the explanations floated involve factors on which there is little data available…or where data just gets assumed. Backwards science.
Trisha M. Kline ? I don’t recognize this name, but then I don’t get around much. Can anyone help me out here? Anyone? Trisha?
Well, anyway Trisha writes “The claim that there’s been no global warming for the past 16 years. This is blatantly untrue, a ridiculous and obviously false statement.”
It can’t be “obviously false” in so far as so many people think that it has paused. Still, Trisha can find something to backup such a claim. Right, Trisha? What data? What time period? Give it a good shot, Trisha.
We do hear, however, that the last few years have been warmer than average and people seem to want to make a big deal of this. A thought, not original with me, is that being at the ripe old age of 70, I have been above my yearly average height for about 53 years. My height increased rapidly for the first 15 years and then slowed, reached a maximum at about 18, then plateaued for many years, and over the last several years I have shrunk a bit. Not much. I’m still above average height for my 70 years. I think that’s good and I like warm temperature better than cold. So the temperature is good too. Although to tell the truth, I can’t tell that it is warmer now than it was at anytime prior in my life. I find that odd. Maybe the changes just haven’t been that big. I’ll go with that thought until proven wrong. Over to you, Trisha.
Maybe Trisha M. Kline is a sort of relative to the more well-known Heidi D. Cline?
There are roughly three states of knowledge, (a) you can study a book thoroughly, (b) you can study nothing at all, and (c) you study thoroughly a book written by a joker in which everything is wrong on purpose. After taking an exam of two-choice items, you will have a: 97% correct, 3% wrong, b: 50% correct, 50% wrong, c: 3% correct, 97% wrong.
UK Met Office:-
Global average temperature forecast for 2014
19 December 2013 – “The global average temperature in 2014 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, with a central estimate of 0.57 °C,…”
Met Office 2013 annual global temperature forecast
20 December 2012 – “2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C,…”
So more “standstill/pause/hiatus” is forecast
2013 furned out to be +0.49°C which is about par for the MO forecasts they appear to always have a warm bias.
It’s like the advice we give bad baseball players: “Keep swinging, eventually the ball will hit the bat!”.
markx at WUWT has assisted (and refers back to a post by Pierre that I forgot to bookmark):
from various sources:
2012 14.0 °C
Paul Homewood has an interesting analysis starting in 2002 – “this approach avoids the accusation, often made, that the “pause” is not real as it relies on using 1998 as the start point.”:-
Global Temperature Report – 2013
Pierre, your quote has a typo. It should be
could ONCE again head upwards.”
Thanks – now fixed.
This entry was posted in Climate data and tagged Benjamin D. Santer , Christopher Monckton 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley , Global warming , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , IPCC , Linear regression , Statistical significance , Washington Post . Bookmark the permalink .