Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

clip_image002_thumb.pngEl Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

Why RSS? Well, it’s the first of the five datasets to report each month, so it’s topical. Also, it correctly shows how much bigger the el Niño of 1998 was than any of its successors. It was the only event of its kind in 150 years that caused widespread coral bleaching. Other temperature records do not distinguish so clearly between the 1998 el Niño and the rest. It is carefully calibrated to correct for orbital degradation in the old NOAA satellite on which it relies. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.

Updated key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø Since 1 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014 – more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

449 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Shearer
August 2, 2014 8:03 am

Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

Leonard Weinstein
August 2, 2014 8:21 am

R. Shearer,
It does not matter if natural cooling exactly cancelled out AGW, or if there is no significant AGW. The supporters of CAGW insisted that CO2 is the main force that drives average temperature, and insisted it would totally dominate any natural variation (except short term volcanic effects). Skeptics have contended that either the forcing was much smaller than promoted, so that it was not a real problem, or that natural variation dominated the human CO2 contribution, so that it was not the main controlling method. These skeptics positions have been supported with actual data evidence, although which of the two factors is more important is not fully resolved.
The issue was the possible onset of a major rising temperature problem due to CO2 increase, and it has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is significant reason to think an average cooling trend for at least several decades is more likely than a warming trend, following the plateau.

Rick K
August 2, 2014 8:22 am

Wonderful information. Much appreciated, Christopher.

August 2, 2014 8:28 am

Does WFT use a different method for calculations? The reason I ask is that WFT gives a positive slope of “slope = 1.25851e-05 per year” for 214 months. However the slopes is negative “slope = -0.000162934 per year” for 213 months.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the negative slope for 213 months is an order of magnitude more than the positive slope for 214 months, so to the nearest month, 214 could be argued for.
The anomaly of 0.350 is the fifth highest July. A record is out of reach since the average for the remaining five months must now be 0.946 which has never been reached.
With an average over seven months of 0.267, RSS is now ranked 6th.
1 {1998, 0.550},
2 {2010, 0.472},
3 {2005, 0.33},
4 {2003, 0.32},
5 {2002, 0.315},
6 {2007, 0.256},
7 {2001, 0.246},
8 {2006, 0.231}

richard
August 2, 2014 8:29 am

amazing considering the temp jiggery-pokery by GISS over the last few decades.

August 2, 2014 8:29 am

It is time for the people to CLOSE THE EPA before they bankrupt the people and industries.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html

MikeB
August 2, 2014 8:35 am

The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation

This doesn’t seem right to me. Satellites infer Earth temperatures at various altitudes by examining microwave radiation emitted by oxygen isotopes in the atmosphere. If they look spaceward there won’t be any oxygen and so I do not see how they can calibrate themselves that way.
But, I am no expert in this field. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable (Dr. Roy Spencer for example) would care to comment.

Richard M
August 2, 2014 8:39 am

The recent El Niño conditions of the Pacific have no doubt added a little to the anomaly. And, since this added warmth looks like it will have been exhausted by the end of August I look for another cooling off this fall and winter to low anomaly value as we’ve seen over the last several years. If this happens then the start date of the pause will revert back to around the first of July. Early 2015 could easily see the pause stretch to 18.5 years.

Cheshirered
August 2, 2014 8:42 am

Two points if I may.
Firstly, isn’t it time the IPCC’s prediction of 4.8C by 2100 is properly refuted? Observations and reducing climate sensitivity estimates indicate such an outlandish prediction has no credibility whatsoever. It would appear to be retained by the IPCC solely to allow alarmist headline writers a free hand.
Secondly, could Lord M be so kind as to explain in layman’s terms what is the actual definition of “no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years”? Is it the margin of measuring error or something else? Thanks.

Baart1980
August 2, 2014 8:44 am

What after el Nino ends ?

Richard M
August 2, 2014 8:45 am

One thing I find strange is a positive anomaly for the continental US. Although it is low, I thought most of the country was experiencing quite cool conditions.

Charlie
August 2, 2014 8:47 am

‘….the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.’
It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..

August 2, 2014 8:59 am

ACTUALLY
it has been globally cooling
when you throw the dice three times
and it comes up “cooling”
three times
what can you say?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
(look at the graphs at the end of each table)

mark in toledo
August 2, 2014 9:00 am

“It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..”
Charlie…of course it can. If the two new months of temperatures require that we drop the earliest two months to find the “length of the pause” then that’s exactly what can (and did) happen. remember the question…”How long back can we go and show totally flat temperatures?” the answer to that question can be the same in length for 6 months in a row, if the early months were cool…..

August 2, 2014 9:02 am

I thought global warming wasn’t the issue anymore. Isn’t it all about “climate change” now?

GeeJam
August 2, 2014 9:08 am

So, how many unnecessary trillions have been squandered – in an attempt to “remedy” 17 years and 10 months of non-existent warming? Frightening. Just frittering it all away on a whim.
Thank you MiLord. Just adore the line where you say “Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.”

Don Keiller
August 2, 2014 9:13 am

Another Green “expert” exposed.
“He has published nothing on [shale gas] in any proper scientific forum – no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo-scientific scaremongering. He falsely claims to be a chartered geologist. That’s fraudulent. It’s wilful untruth. I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the university by someone who never fails to use his university affiliation.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/8/2/smythe-busted.html

August 2, 2014 9:15 am

Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton.
This lack of warming is real. I just checked the NCDC temperatures and got a cooling trend of 0.03°C/Decade from 2005 to 2013. NCDC is the database that shows the shortest “pause”, only from around 2005.

Neil
August 2, 2014 9:16 am

There’s still an el-Nino forming?

highflight56433
August 2, 2014 9:17 am

Another example of lying with statistics rather than thinking scientific fact: CO2 has a lower heat index than water vapor. Therefore, diluting the atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration lowers the overall heat index of the atmosphere. If I wanted to heat planet Mars atmosphere I would add what? ANS: Water vapor. Point being, claiming our impact on increasing CO2 as the driving force for global warming is bunk. 🙂

Ex-expat Colin
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee unqualified majority believe the IPCC current status. The two qualified (Lilley/Stringer) said its IPCC BS more or less. Ms Lucas has given Milliband a letter slagging Stringer off.
The weather here in Worcestershire is bright/warm and the plants love it….C02 works for the good. Grapes abundant soon.
Just ordering my two new Diesel electric sets and building a vast fuel tank. Do I need CCS?

Lance Wallace
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

“auto-regression” is a meaningless term–you mean “autocorrelation.” And whether there is so little you can ignore it requires more proof than the simple claim. And if the process is chaotic, a linear regression tells us nothing about what will happen in the future. McKitrick has lately presented a new econometric approach that searches time series data for a possible breakpoint or step change. Using all the temperature data from about 1959, their method finds a breakpoint occurring in 1976 IIRC that in fact corresponds to the Great Pacific Shift (identified by great changes in fishery populations and other observations). For the 17 years before 1976 and the 38 years afterward, the best fit is in fact two lines each of zero slope, offset by an upward jump of something less than a degree C in 1976. My computer is acting up presently so I can’t provide a link, but it was featured in WUWT a couple of days ago.

urederra
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

Short answer: Nobody knows.
Long answer: In order to reply to that question first we must know very accurately how the natural cycles work and what the human contribution to warming (and cooling, I guess) is. We do not know either of those, partly because we need to know the Earth’s heat balance and the only thing we have are some poorly maintained and highly adjusted temperature datasets.

PMHinSC
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

MikeB says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:35 am
“The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers…. This doesn’t seem right to me.”
It would probably be less confusion if it read:
The satellite datasets are based on measurements calibrated against platinum resistance thermometers.

Beta Blocker
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

Monckton of Brenchley:
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Was least-squares linear regression used to calculate the two CET trends?

1 2 3 18