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.

About these ads

449 thoughts on “Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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}

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. ‘….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…..

  9. “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…..

  10. 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.”

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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. :)

  14. 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?

  15. “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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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?

  19. Neil says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:16 am

    > There’s still an el-Nino forming?

    New weather/climate aphorism: Cold PDO – El Niño won’t show.

  20. Charlie says:
    August 2, 2014 at 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…..
    *******************************************************************************************
    Sure it can, If you imagine the months being counted backwards and calculating any warming from the end of the current month backwards as far as it takes to get no warming.
    All it means is that the latest month being added replaces the previous earliest month in the series because to keep the earlier month to give 17yrs 11 months would result in a warming result.

    Hope that’s clear
    SteveT

  21. Sorry Mark in Toledo at 0.00am, you beat me to it and explained it better. I’d forgotten how long since I last refreshed.

    SteveT

  22. For the latest updated cooling forecast based on the natural quasi -periodicities in solar activity see

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    Here is a summary of the conclusions.
    “I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 NH Forecast
    1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13Global Forecast
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
    3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
    3.2.1 Updates
    a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
    b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
    c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.
    3.2.2. Observations.
    a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.
    During the last year Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then .This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months , and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase .The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.
    b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
    I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
    “There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
    This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United states. Indeed as I write this in Houston on July 29th 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, finally the snow cover never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop as suggested by Steve Goddard,”

  23. “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?”

    Near 100%! Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, all else being equal, should produce some warming, just nowhere near what the IPCC says it should. Nonetheless, if the CO2 content increases and there is no warming, something must be offsetting that warming. I would say that it is 100% natural cooling, but there is a slight chance that we humans are doing something else (land use changes, aerosols, con trails, etc.) that is cancelling some of the warming.

    But, like Leonard Weinstein said, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the CAGW Theory of climate change is proven wrong by these observations, no matter what reason or excuse is given for the lack of warming.

  24. Lance Wallace:

    In your post at August 2, 2014 at 9:21 am you say

    And if the process is chaotic, a linear regression tells us nothing about what will happen in the future.

    The discussion is about the recent past. Only you has mentioned the future.
    So, your point is?

    Richard

  25. Jim Clarke says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am

    I have come to the conclusion that CO2 has zero effect on the Earth climate. Solar + ocean cycles explains it all.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/solar-amo-pdo-cycles-combined-reproduce-the-global-climate-of-the-past/

    The present “stagnation” of global temperature ( Fig. 5 ) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum, around which it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. Due to the de Vries cycle the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.

    The article gives a slight nod to CO2. I give none.

  26. 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.

    Exactly.
    It doesn’t matter how technical you sound when you express an opinion.
    It doesn’t matter how authoritative the position is from which you express an opinion.
    It doesn’t matter if you express your opinion in Latin, Sanskrit, Computer Code or Interpretive Dance.

    If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And your opinion can be disregarded.

  27. While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.

    That aside some of the comparisons in the above post are ridiculous, e.g CET and global trends.

  28. Dr Norman Page says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:51 am

    If the Holocene lasts as long as the Eemian (the MIS 5 interglacial), it has about 5000 more years to run. If as long as the Holsteinian (name in Northern Europe for the MIS 11 interglacial), then a lot more time than that is left for balmy conditions. The Holocene has already endured for longer than the intervening, relatively weak interglacials of MIS 9 & 7.

    MIS 11 is generally considered the best orbital mechanical (which factors control insolation) analogue for the Holocene. It lasted long enough & was sufficiently warmer than the Holocene for the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet largely to melt thanks to natural global warming. This dome only partially melted during the Eemian, also warmer than & longer lasting than the Holocene so far.

    This excellent 2011 study of German lake sediments shows the similarities in short time scale climatic variations between the MIS 11 & Holocene interglacials, which fluctuations correlate well with solar cycles. So no need to posit volcanic triggers or any other explanation for decadal to centennial scale warmer & cooler periods in the Holocene. The best supported hypothesis remains the sun. For still shorter time scales, the lake observations record ENSO & NAO variations.:

    Sub-decadal- to decadal-scale climate cyclicity during the Holsteinian interglacial (MIS 11) evidenced in annually laminated sediments

    Abstract.

    To unravel the short-term climate variability during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11, which represents a close analogue to the Holocene with regard to orbital boundary conditions, we performed microfacies and time series analyses on a 3200-yr-long record of annually laminated
    Holsteinian lake sediments from Dethlingen, northern Germany.

    These biogenic varves comprise two sub-layers: a light sub-layer, which is controlled by spring/summer diatom blooms, and a dark sub-layer consisting mainly of amorphous
    organic matter and fragmented diatom frustules deposited during autumn/winter. Time series analyses were performed on the thickness of the light and dark sub-layers. Signals exceeding the 95% and 99% confidence levels occur at periods that are near-identical to those known from modern instrumental data and Holocene palaeoclimatic records.

    Spectral peaks at periods of 90, 25, and 10.5 yr are likely associated with the 88-, 22- and 11-yr solar cycles, respectively. This variability is mainly expressed in the light sublayer spectra, suggesting solar influence on the palaeoproductivity of the lake. Significant signals at periods between 3 and 5 yr and at 6 yr are strongest expressed in the dark sub-layer spectra and may reflect an influence of the El Ni˜no-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation
    (NAO) during autumn/winter.

    Our results suggest that solar forcing and ENSO/NAO-like variability influenced central European climate during MIS 11 similarly to the present interglacial, thus demonstrating the comparability of the two interglacial periods at sub-decadal to decadal timescales.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clim-past.net%2F7%2F987%2F2011%2Fcp-7-987-2011.pdf&ei=CRjdU_bVL8vliwLw44DgBQ&usg=AFQjCNELzOCYxtgqsBdpmsFwfy5-7RojJw&sig2=uU2G8WVo65lp0P25bhIF3Q&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGE

  29. 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?”

    urederra says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:21 am
    Nobody knows.

    Jim Clarke says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
    Near 100%!

    My answer is: Near 0%
    It find it almost statistically possible for a natural phenomena to cancel an anthropogenic effect for over 17 years. Were it not for the cliché “a monkey hitting keys at random for an infinite amount of time will create a complete works of William Shakespeare” I would drop the “near.”

    So, the answer to your question is “nobody knows”, “100%,” or “0%.”
    Is there anything else we can help you with?

  30. John Finn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am

    ” earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”

    Evidence of this can be found in the thermal expansion component of sea level rise.

  31. Dr Norman Page says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:51 am …”As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, finally the snow cover never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop as suggested by Steve Goddard,””

    If snow cover never melts, glaciation is faster than as stated “a few thousands years.” Example: New glaciers on Mt. St Helens since 1980.

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/st_helens/st_helens_geo_hist_104.html

  32. John Finn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Sea level rise has slowed. Sea ice extent is growing. The “data” on ocean heat content are only slightly less reliable than the “adjusted” surface temperature record.

    But the important point is that the predictions of GCM models have been falsified, so are worse than worthless for purposes of advising public policy.

  33. PMHinSC says:
    August 2, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Natural (& possibly man-made) cooling more than cancels out whatever small warming effect might occur from man-made GHGs. The earth is presently cooling, which corrupt “adjustments” to valid surface observations can no longer hide, thanks to the vigilance of satellites.

  34. John Finn says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1699977

    Henry says

    there is no global warming whatsoever
    it is only cooling
    I threw the dice three times

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    and three times it comes up global cooling
    [you can do any test of for the significance for those correlation coefficients and it will show a pass]
    However, this [global cooling] will cause some major problems

    Any ideas what those problems might be, John?

  35. john finn,can you point me to literature on the instruments measuring this oceanic energy increase ,specifically the chapter on their accuracy.

  36. Milodonharlani
    I agree with you that it is important to know where earth stands relative to the 100,000- 20,000 year Milankovitch orbital ice age cycles which are then modulated by the solar activity quasiperiodicities .here’s what the link at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    says about the former:
    “The information in Fig 4 is essential for forecasting climate over future periods of several thousand years and longer.The green eccentricity curves in Fig 4 show that Marine Isotope Stage 11 (424-374,000 years ago) and MIS 19 ( 788-775,000 ) were the Milankovitch cycles most closely analogous to the present day. The 400,000 +/- year periodicities seen by inspecting the same curve are very stable and have been recognized in the Geological Record as far back as 400 million years. It would appear from a glance at Fig.4 that such forecasting would be straightforward but this is not so. In climate forecasting other things in the system as a whole are never equal with the result that, as reported in the Wiki article, opinions differ e.g.:
    “An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.[23]
    More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.
    As a further example Rohling et al 2010 say:
    ” Recent comparisons pf CO2 and CH4 trends throughMIS-19 with those of the Holocene, in the absence of sea level constraints, have been used to suggest that the Holocene should have terminated already .Kutzbach et al 2009.
    and Tzedakis et al 2012 discus various mechanisms and timings

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html

    they say:
    “Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv.”

    The relative Antarctic temperatures at the Vostock site over the last four glacials and interglacials preceding our Holocene warming peak are shown in dark green in Fig 4.
    It is of interest to note that Northern Canadian temperatures during the Eemian interglacial (130,000-115,000 years ago) are estimated to be 5 degrees C higher than today and global sea levels were about 5 meters higher than at present. During the Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial Greenland temperatures were about 8 degrees C warmer than today and global sea levels have been variously estimated from 8-20 meters above present day. A final point of interest is the rapid temperature rise which terminates all the glacial periods. The reasons for this rapid warming remain the subject of active investigation. as is the relative length of the interglacial periods. The repeated episodes of rapid warming during the Pleistocene indicate that climate response to the natural drivers is non – linear and some combination of resonances between drivers results in passing a threshold beyond which a period of positive feedback produces rapid change.
    Of interest in this regard is the current declining trend in the earths obliquity
    Wiki says
    “Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling “

  37. I tire of these graphs that only go back 15-20 years and say, “Look at the ‘Great Pause’!” If one looks at the global (not specific locations, like Central England) temperature record back to 1850, you will see several other “great pauses.” http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

    So is there something special about the current pause? Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?

  38. Monckton of Brenchley:
    ” …. 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. …”
    ===========================================
    H Grouse:
    Monckton’s cherry.
    <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

    “>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

    UAH-only versions of Figures 1, 2, and 3 covering the same timeframes would be very useful for comparison purposes.

  39. . As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.

    As Steven Mcintyre and I both document. The climate gate mails are not about giss or hadcru or ncdc.

    Your mistaken impression contributed to Jones getting off
    Scott free. Rather than investigating the proxy papers
    The investigations misdirected attention to temperature records. Skeptics didn’t help matters by saying the mails
    Were about giss and hadcru.

    At one point I was contacted by high profile Washington dc
    Skeptics demanding that I find some way to attack
    Noaa with the mails.

    The mails were about proxies. Ar4 chapter 6. Gatekeepers.
    And fighting for a. Not about giss. Not about hadcru.

    And in case you want to bring up harryreadme??? That’s about a dataset not used in climate studies

    ["And fighting for a." ?? Typo? .mod]

  40. Dr Norman Page says:
    August 2, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Experts disagree over whether MIS 11 or MIS 19 is the better analogue for orbital mechanics of the Holocene. But the ~400,000 year cycle in interglacial “repetition” is well supported. The Southern Dome definitely melted during MIS 19.

    The world will indeed be lucky if the Holocene lasts as long as MIS 11. Losing the Southern Dome & associated possible mild sea level rise can be adapted to & is a small price to pay for not suffering mile high ice sheets over Canada, parts of the US, northern Britain, Scandinavia, Siberia & Tibet, to mention just the NH, plus more extensive montane glaciers & sea ice. Since the Holocene has been so much cooler than the Eemian & MIS 11, we might not even lose the Southern Dome if our interglacial should endure another 20,000 years. There are also techniques for cooling the atmosphere if need be, however risky.

  41. Great information. Thanks. However here in the South Pacific, home of ENSO, there as yet is no El Nino. Still Neutral I’m pleased to say. All latest data from BoM.

  42. Friends:

    John Finn and H Grouse have attempted to redefine global warming by introducing the irrelevance of energy gain in the oceans. By this redefinition they hope to avoid the fact that global warming has stopped.

    John Finn attempted to ‘move the goalposts’ to another planet when he wrote at August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am saying in total

    While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.

    That aside some of the comparisons in the above post are ridiculous, e.g CET and global trends.

    I ask everyone to – like me – ignore Finn’s final sentence because it is a ‘red herring’ intended to disrupt debate.

    Please consider his daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.

    Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase energy.

    Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
    That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.

    All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.

    Richard

  43. Richard,
    Surely you can appreciate that heat circulates through the ocean-atmosphere system, so it seems ridiculous to ignore the warming oceans and melting ice and declare that global warming has stopped. Who is throwing out the “red herrings” to disrupt debate? (And I agree–see my previous post–that comparing local temperatures to global trends is equally ridiculous.)

  44. richardscourtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am

    “the irrelevance of energy gain in the ocean”

    Richard, you ought to spend a hot summer day at the ocean shore, or walk on that shore in the dead of winter. You’ll appreciate the effect the water has on air temperatures.

  45. . As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.

    As Steven Mcintyre and I both document. The climate gate mails are not about giss or hadcru or ncdc.

    Your mistaken impression contributed to Jones getting off
    Scott free. Rather than investigating the proxy papers
    The investigations misdirected attention to temperature records. Skeptics didn’t help matters by saying the mails
    Were about giss and hadcru.

    At one point I was contacted by high profile Washington dc
    Skeptics demanding that I find some way to attack
    Noaa with the mails.

    The mails were about proxies. Ar4 chapter 6. Gatekeepers.
    And fighting [Freedom of Information Act requests]. Not about giss. Not about hadcru.

    And in case you want to bring up harryreadme??? That’s about a dataset not used in climate studies

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

    Funnily enough, that same perfect coincidence (of some mysterious cooling to exactly cancel CO2’s alleged effect) is going on on Venus, where the [temperature at the altitude where atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth's sea level] is no hotter than mere proximity to the Sun would have it be, despite 960,000 ppm CO2.

    Call me Ms. Silly, but I just really wouldn’t care to base policy on a theory that depends on magically-perfect coincidences.

  47. justaskin says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Globally, sea ice is growing, not melting. When the PDO/AMO cycle fully reverses, Arctic sea ice will join Antarctic ice in growing. It may already have done so, but we’ll have to wait a few years to be sure. Whatever slight effect a possibly scarcely measurable higher air T in the Arctic might have had on sea ice there is negligible compared to water T, controlled by oceanic circulation.

    Moreover, Antarctic sea ice is far more important in regulating global T, since it reaches into lower latitudes, where its effect on albedo makes a more significant contribution.

  48. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Yet air T is cooling globally, not warming.

    No one doubts the moderating effect of water on nearby land T, except for “Chuckie”, a troll loon without a valid email address on another thread.

  49. Satellites don’t measure temperature.
    They measure brightness.
    Temperature is reconstructed by applying physical theory
    And idealized weighting schemes.
    Further the data series are heavily and repeatedly adjusted to change the past measurements.
    These adjustments are called corrections.
    Satellite data is not raw.
    It is not temperature
    It is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature that
    Relies on radiative physics being correct.

  50. Charlie says:
    August 2, 2014 at 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…..”

    Yes it can stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row. Think about it.

  51. Steven Mosher says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:30 am

    Satellite observations are far more reliable than the “adjusted” largely imaginary surface “temperature record”. Among the many laughable “adjustments” making the main GASTA “data sets” fraudulently worse than worthless are adjusting the past always colder & more recent readings hotter, UHI effect (remarkably hotter rather than cooler, as a rational person would expect), adding unneeded stations in preposterously sited locations (such as the second Death Valley site) & adjusting ocean T upwards to match the rigged land station data.

    Once the adjustments have been adjusted for, the 1930s once again become hotter than the 1990s, as in reality was the case.

  52. John Finn, justaskin and H Grouse:

    Before global warming stopped you were happy to support the definition of global warming as being rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA). But now global warming has stopped you say energy content of the climate system is a better indicator of climate change.

    Why were you silent when rise in GASTA was being proclaimed as being global warming?

    Why did you not proclaim that GASTA was an inappropriate indicator of global warming before global warming stopped?

    Why did you not say that global warming was not an appropriate indicator of climate change until after global warming stopped?

    Why did you not say that change of energy in the climate system was a better indicator of climate change than global warming until after global warming stopped?

    I have been saying those things for years. Indeed, ‘climategate’ revealed my lobbying ‘The Team’ about those things. Read my Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘climategate’ and read its Appendix B.

    In comparison with you warmunists the Vicar Of Bray seems consistent and honourable.

    Richard

  53. H Grouse says: August 2, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Beta Blocker says: August 2, 2014 at 10:56 am

    [UAH versus RSS, 1997 - 2014] “very useful for comparison purposes.”

    This is a rough comparison [UAH versus RSS, 1997 - 2014]

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend.

    Very good. From a quick visual inspection of the Wood For Trees graphic, the rate of increase in UAH was very roughly + 0.08 C per decade between the two end points. Is that what you yourself get from a visual estimate of the UAH temperature rise?

  54. Steven Mosher says:August 2, 2014 at 11:30 am

    “Satellites don’t measure temperature [...]
    Satellite data is not raw.
    It is not temperature
    It is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature that
    Relies on radiative physics being correct.”

    My first reaction was, Oh Jeez! What do you want to happen Mosher? Do you really want – so much – the world to warm and suffer as your ‘science’ predicts, or do you hope to be wrong? (Silly question – you can only be right – and be wiped out by a 1.5 Deg C increase in warming. As if.)

    My second is this:Can you tell me of any other ‘adjusted corrected…temperature [series]…’ that supports your point of view?

  55. richardscourtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Richard, when you take that walk upon the shoreline beach, listen carefully to the sound of the waves crashing on the sand.

    Very soothing, does wonders for blood pressure.

  56. justaskin says:

    I tire of these graphs that only go back 15-20 years and say, “Look at the ‘Great Pause’!”

    Yet you’re still enthralled by those graphs that only cover the 15-20 years before that and say “Look at the “Global Warming’!” Funny how that works.

    If one looks at the global (not specific locations, like Central England) temperature record back to 1850, you will see several other “great pauses.”

    You will also see several other “global warming” periods in the record back to 1850. IPCC CO2 warming theory says that anthropogenic CO2 cannot be responsible for those warming periods earlier than 1950. Only politics causes them to say something different about the one since. Kind of like how you choose which 15-20 year periods to tire of.

    So is there something special about the current pause?

    Yes. It occurs during a time when CO2 warming theory claims it should not exist. As with the above, this indicates that CO2 warming theory is wrong.

    Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?

    Nah. Same old climate regime, periodically pumping more heat into the oceans than the air (which would not be a particularly bad thing) and vice versa (ditto).

  57. Harry Passfield says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:53 am

    The calculations for & corrections to the satellite observations are scientifically justified. The adjustments to land station “data” are a shameless, intentional scam.

  58. Our water based planet is unlikely to be prone to the instability of strong water vapour GHG positive feedback, otherwise it would have experienced runaway temperatures many times in the past. It would only require elevated temperatures to get it going.

    Water vapour GHG warming probably does occur, but it is clear from the stability of our climate that it is limited and it is likely that we are beyond that limit because we do not see the predicted feedback today or evidence of its existence.

    Carbon dioxide warming is less than for water vapour and has a logarithmic response to concentration and can also be limited by band saturation. GHG back radiation absorption, followed by convection and radiation to space can be a cooling mechanism. Whatever the dominant mechanism, it becomes clearer with each passing year that the carbon dioxide contribution to temperature rise may have peaked at around one degree per doubling, which is well within our ability to cope without alarmist measures.

    All of that is without attributing the temperature pause to cooling influences, or indeed, to attributing some of the earlier warming to natural variability.

    So, while we can never rule out the ability of nature to surprise us, it does look as though the climate models have got it wrong.

    In the meantime, our governments continue to squander our money at an incredible rate on combating climate change and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We are being locked into energy policies that are insane.

    How long are we going to allow our governments to blunder onwards before we call them to account and take notice of the ever increasing discrepancy between climate models and reality?

  59. H Grouse:

    In addition to your offensive post at August 2, 2014 at 11:54 am perhaps you could provide a reply to my post at August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am which answers my questions. I think that is the least I can reasonably expect from warmunists who have subjected me to years of abuse because I said things they now want said.

    I provide this link to help you find the questions.

    And my heart condition does not enable me to take long walks along the beach so that solution to one of my health problems won’t work, but thanks for your suggestion.

    Richard

  60. MikeB says:
    August 2, 2014 at 8:35 am

    The satellites calibrate themselves by pointing their sensors(mirrors) into deep space and measuring the temperature in the microwave band. If the sensors do not return a value of 2.78K, the difference in the temperature reading is added to or subtracted from the microwave readings for the Earth’s atmosphere. (Not actually sure if this is the way it’s done, but it seems logical to me.)

  61. In answer to Richard M and to Neil, there is another warm wave in the Pacific, so the el Niño may have some life in it yet. Temperatures could rise till the spring of 2015, though they might not. I’m not the IPCC, so no crystal ball.

    “Cheshirered” is right to say the IPCC’s high-end projection of 4.8 C warming by 2100 should be refuted. It’s plainly far too high. The oleaginous Sir David King, the UK’s “climate change ambassador”, told the Environmentalist Committee of the Commons that 4.5 C was the warming to expect by 2100. Make that 1 C at most.

    In answer to “Cheshirered’s” second question, one can go back 22 years in the RSS dataset without warming distinguishable from the 0.15 C measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties, and more than 26 years (that is Werner Brozek’s value) without statistical significance at (if I remember aright) the 95% confidence level.

    “Baart1980” asks what happens when El Niño ends. Usually, as one can see from the displayed anomalies (dark blue stochastic data on the graphs in the head posting), an El Niño is followed by a La Niña in which much of the El Niño warming is canceled out.

    In answer to Mr Valencia, one can go back 13 years 4 months and still find a zero trend on the NCDC data.

    With respect, “highflight53422” may have misunderstood the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.

    In answer to “Beta Blocker”, Yes, I use least-squares linear regression, because everyone understands it, and it is what the IPCC uses. “Phil” Jones recommends it.

    Not sure about Norman Page’s prediction of solar-induced cooling. The climate is strongly homeostatic, and the greenhouse-gas theory would lead us to expect some warming, all other things being equal. But I don’t have the IPCC’s crystal ball. He could be right.

    “H Grouse” suggests I have cherry-picked the RSS dataset. Yet only a few days ago I presented a six-monthly results update for all five datasets. Since 1979, all five datasets have produced outputs whose differences fall within the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties in the data and are, therefore, indistinguishable from each other. They all show little warming since 1979, and none distinguishable from the combined uncertainties for more than 13 years. The models have failed.

    Mr Courtney is right to draw Mr Wallace’s attention to the fact that I had not sought to make any predictions on the basis of the trends shown in the head posting. By definition, linear trends are not predictive: but they do show clearly enough what has happened, and what has happened is that the warming of recent decades is well below what the models had predicted. By now, if the record rises in CO2 over recent decades were really going to cause global warming, they would have caused a lot more than they have.

    Mr Finn continues to state, without citing evidence, that the oceans are “accumulating energy” at a rapid rate. However, Dr David Evans has calculated on the basis of the Argo measurements that the oceans (which have not been warming much recently) are warming at one-seventh the rate predicted by the models. And, since atmosphere that is supposed to be the cause of the ocean warming has not itself warmed, and is in any event three orders of magnitude less dense than the oceans it is supposed to be warming, there is at least a statable case that such warming as may be occurring in the oceans is more from below than from above. The truth is that we are unable to measure ocean heat content to anything like a resolution sufficient to justify any claim that the oceans are warming at all, let alone that they are warming because of CO2.

    Mr Finn is also incorrect to say mentioning the central England temperature is “ridiculous”. CET is a reasonable indication of global trends: it is on the right latitude, and over the past two cycles of the PDO (i.e. 120 years) its trend is within one-hundredth of a degree of the global trend. One understands that he is sour at the failure of the models in which so many so foolishly placed so much reliance: but he should perhaps be more critical of the models and less critical of straightforward data demonstrating that the models were wrong.

    Mr Grouse finds evidence of ocean warming in the thermosteric-expansion component of sea-level rise. Except that, on the Envisat and GRACE data, sea level has either hardly risen or even fallen a little, and there is evidence that the Jason/Topex satellite series have been tampered with (Moerner, 2011) to show warming that has not occurred, and it is clear that the intercalibration errors between the successive satellites in that series are greater than the total sea-level rise they purport to measure.

  62. With respect, “highflight56433” may have misunderstood the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.

    The number of photons being constant are distributed over a fixed area. Therefore, there are not more radiators. The photons too would have to increase.

  63. Here is the problem: Mr. Monckton has been so inflammatory and so over the top on other issues, his message about what is giong on with the pause- which is valid- is simply ignored by many who could other wise benefit from this important news.

  64. hunter says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    IMO “plateau” is preferable to “pause”. Plateau suggests that in coming years warming could resume, ie the plateau could lead to more mountains, but also that it could be followed by another valley. Pause IMO implies certainty that the next move in GASTA will be higher, which may well be the case if data corruption continues unabated, regardless of what actually happens in nature.

    IMO our planet is already cooling, following a plateau from c. 1996 to c. 2005 or later in the past decade, with the timing differing a little in the two satellite data sets.

  65. “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

    Even if that were the case, it would imply that natural positive forcings must exist that are commensurate with that cooling, as otherwise the climate would end up in an icebox and stay there. Strong natural cooling implies strong natural warming.

  66. Someone said a million monkeys randomly banging on keyboards would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. He obviously has not spent much time on the internet.

  67. Justaskin There is a variable delay ( 12 – 20 years) between the solar activity driver and the ocean SSTs and Total OHC response. For the total OHC see Fig 18 from wunsch et al at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/deep-oceans-are-cooling-amidst-a-sea-of-modeling-uncertainty-new-research-on-ocean-heat-content/

    This shows OHC peaked about 2009.
    SSTs peaked about 2003 see FIg 17 at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    Here’s a quote from the same post – check Figs 13 and 14.

    ” Lockwood et al 2014 in press say in their abstract at http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2009/Lockwood_ApJ_openflux_F1.pdf
    “Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar
    activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when
    25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV.
    Extrapolating the linear declines seen in all three parameters since 1985, yields
    predictions that the grand maximum will end in the years 2013, 2014, or 2027 using VSW, FS, or B respectively”.
    My own view ,based on the Ap index Fig 13 and Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity maximum peaked in about 1991.with the sharp decline beginning about 2005 – 6.”
    The 1991 peak represents a peak in the 1000 year solar activity quasi periodicity see Figs 5,6,and7 at the same post.

  68. 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

    It’s probably all those tropical storm clouds getting in the way of the sunshine.
    Screws the El up.

  69. I quote: “…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.”

    I beg to differ, lord Chtistopher. The longest period witthout any warming in the global instrumental temperature record, once satellites first watched it, is the eighteen year stretch from 1979 to the beginning of 1997. The warmist cabal has successfully managed to suppress this fact by calling it the “late twentieth century warming” and creating a phony temperature rise of 0.1 degrees Celsius there. You will find this phonyness in all three currently used ground-based temperature curves, but not in satellite curves. Luckily these guys have not been able to take over satellite measurements or we really would not know what happens to global temperature. In the eighties and nineties there are five El Nino peaks present just before the super El Nino of 1998 arrives. The valleys between the peaks are La Nina valleys that normally follow after each continental El Nino peak. The exceptions may be El Nino Modoki where an El Nino wave spreads out in the Central Pacific before reaching the South American coast. The temperature difference from an El Nino peak to an adjacent La Nina valley is 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius. The midpoint between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley defines the local mean temperature. Connecting these points shows what global mean temperature is doing. If you do that with the five El Ninos in that time interval you discover that the global mean becomes a horizontal straight line, indicating no warming at all for the eighteen years involved., I did this in my book “What Warming?” in 2010 and you can see the result in my Figure 15. I expected the warmists to ignore the book but I find that people who wish to oppose this cabal are likewise uninformed about what is in it. Do your homework guys! There is more information in this Figure 15 you missed by not reading the book. You will find that the super El Nino of 1998 divides that period approximately in two. To the left of it is the train of El Ninos I just described. The peak of the super El Nino itself is twice as high as the other five. Since each El Nino peak gives us a measure of how much warm water its El Nino wave carried across the ocean we could conservatively estimate that rhe super El Nino carried at least twice as much warm water than any of the others. This much is not available from a regular ENSO oscillation and must have a source outside of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. To the right of the super El Nino the platform of the current warming pause is visible. Its mean temperature is also a horizontal straight line but it is not lined up with the mean temperature of the eighties and nineties. These two horizontal lines, if extended, would form two parallel lines separated by a third of a degree Celsius. This difference in height originated in a very short period of three years, just after the super El Nino had subsided. As a result, the entire twenty-first century stands a third of a degree higher than the eighties and nineties did. Hansen and others of course attribute this to greenhouse warming and keep babbling about the first decade of this century being the warmest one on record. It truly is the warmest on record but not because global warming has anything to do with it. The likelihood is high that the step warming that created this difference in only three years is a result of the huge amount of warm water carried across the ocean by the super El Nino. Now here is a climate phenomenon that truly should be investigated. Unfortunately it is not likely to happen because the billions spent by the government for climate research are all wasted on looking for an imaginary greenhouse effect. As you know, Hansen alleged to the United States Senate in 1988 that he personally had discovered the greenhouse effect. His proof was that there was a 100 year warming culminating in the warmest temperature ever which could not have happened by chance alone. But if you look at his data you find that 30 of these 100 years are definitely not greenhouse warming years and therefore cannot be used to prove that the greenhouse effect exists. Nevertheless, he and IPCC have been pushing greenhouse warming as the cause of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. But the existence of the warming pause torpedoes this fantasy. For 17 years there has been no warming but for 17 years there Arrhenius greenhouse theory has been predicting warming. If your theory predicts warming for 17 years and nothing happens you know that this theory belongs in the trash basket of history. The only greenhouse theory capable of explaining the warming pause is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It predicts what we see: there is no warming despite a constant increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. According to Miskolczi this is explained by the cooperation of water vapor and carbon dioxide, the two major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They establish a joint absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb as usual. But that will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide continues to absorb but its warming power is neutralized by the reduction of water vapor in the atmosphere. The result is complete neutralization of greenhouse warming that the entire IPCC organization is built upon. It follows that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. AGW is simply a pseudo-scientific fantasy, pushed by climate “scientists” anxious to prove that greenhouse warming, is real.

  70. Steven Mosher says:

    It is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature that
    Relies on radiative physics being correct.

    And it is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature (that Relies on radiative physics being correct) that demonstrates that CO2 ‘global warming’ theory is wrong.

    Thus, if CO2 ‘global warming’ theory is correct, then either:

    1) radiative physics must be wrong. Or,

    2) the adjustments and corrections must be dominated by elements other than radiative physics that are wrong. Or

    3) CO2 ‘global warming’ theory must be dominated by elements other than radiative physics that are wrong.

    By these facts, insecure name-dropping Mosher’s straw man argument refutes itself. By rights, that would cause insecure self-aggrandizing Mosher to stop using the ‘radiative physics’ argument. That will not happen.

    Instead, insecure pathetic Mosher will make good his drive-by and vanish. He will lay low until the next opportunity arises for him to dress up his smarmy straw man in an “I’m with Steven McIntyre” T-shirt and wave it out the window of the car that his dishonest fake skeptic sugar daddy Richard Muller bought for him.

  71. Monckton,

    In your response to those critiquing your analysis, you say that Central England temps. are indicative of long-term global trends. OK, I agree, they do show warming over the last century (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/).

    But in your article, you report “warming trends” and “rates of rise” at this very specific locale, and compare them to global rates, which is not a fair comparison (though a clever one to argue your case) given that there will always be more variability, over any time scale, at a specific locale than over a larger one.

    I suggest you consult with a professor of geospatial statistics next time.

  72. Thanks for this post Lord Monckton. This ongoing series of posts about the “pause” is one of my absolute favorite parts of WUWT. But even more than the posts themselves, your comments in the threads answering others is what I look forward to so much. I got a huge grin out of the one I read just before posting this comment of mine — and learned a bit to boot. Win/Win

    Keep up the good work! Thanks again.

  73. Water vapour GHG warming probably does occur, but it is clear from the stability of our climate that it is limited….

    Well, yeah — atmospheric water vapor concentration is limited by the temperature of the regional atmosphere. Once it passes the saturation point, it rains back out. However much it may warm the local air, it clearly cannot warm it enough to endlessly push the saturation point away.

    CO2, otoh, can become the whole atmosphere, or very nearly: see Venus and Mars, at 95, 96% CO2. Doesn’t seem to matter, though.

    ….CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.

    Thank you, Sov. Monckton, that’s very clear. Strangely, though, despite 960,000 little radiators per million, Venus manages to be no warmer than mere proximity to the Sun would have it (if it’s fair to compare Venus’ surface temp with Earth’s surface temp and say, look! it’s “too” hot! then it’s fair to compare southerly Mt. Everest with more northerly Death Valley and say, look! you don’t get cooler as you go poleward from the equator, you get warmer!)

    I think the little radiators intercept not only outoing IR, and “radiate” ~half of it planetside instead of letting it all escape, they also intercept the same wavelengths of incoming IR (what, the Sun doesn’t shine in those wavelengths? not at ALL?) and “radiate” ~half — slightly more than half, actually, according to simple geometry — back out into space without letting it get to the surface, for a net gain of, at best, 0, and at worst, a slight loss, especially since CO2 can and apparently does go quite high in the atmosphere.

    I see no worldly evidence — not in the last 17+ years, not in the deep paleoclimate, and not on Venus, for any “greenhouse effect” for CO2 at all, apart from simply being a gas. Any atmosphere at all is going to be more energetic, therefore warmer, than no atmosphere, yah?

  74. @ Arno Arrak at August 2, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    For the love of God man, please use paragraphs in your comments. I know you want others to read what you write or you would not take the time to write at all. So give us a break and put some white space in your comments.

    Some other folks could do that a bit more as well. Just saying.

    Disclaimer I admit that age and eyesight problems might cause me to be more sensitive of the white-space issue than some of the young bucks here, but I would wager that I am not alone.

  75. The PDO has all but destroyed El Niño.
    I would expect Global Cooling to commence during the next year.

  76. http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/documentation/amsu_instrument_guide.shtml#2.

    Describes how the temperature measuring system works on these satellites.

    And yes, the do NOT ‘measure’ temperature but the amount of power ‘sensed’ at defined frequencies (typically 23 GHz and above).

    The actual sensor(s) consists of a rotating reflector which ‘looks’ at planet earth as the reflector spins, causing a ‘track’ to be swept across the earths surface, The satellite is also moving, so is the earth. The net results is a sweep of the earths surface is ‘scanned’. At the end of each earth sweep (8 seconds), the sensor is calibrated. It is ‘shown’ deep space, which runs at <3K and it is then shown a hot calibrated body (black body if you wish) at approximately 288K. The 288K is measured by a handful of PT100 sensors.

    Therefore each sweep of the reflector (or mirror if you wish) we have a path of earth energy captured, plus the deep cold of space, plus 288K. All these values are sent back to earth to processing.

    Yes, it does not 'measure' temperature, it measures the amounts of frequency specific energy and complex processing takes place to give the world the temperature records we require.

    Yes, there are errors that can creep into the whole process, but the system and its data is sufficiently public, for errors and/or deceit to be found.

  77. mellyrn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    “Venus manages to be no warmer than mere proximity to the Sun would have it”

    Isn’t the surface of Venus warmer than the surface of Mercury?

    Mercury 426 degrees C on side facing Sun.
    Venus 462 degrees C anywhere on surface.

  78. mellyrn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    In terms of energy, sunlight at the earth’s surface is around 52 to 55% IR, 43 to 42 percent visible light, & 5 to 3 percent UV (also X-rays during solar flares). At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with ~8% UV on average, but which varies considerably.

    So while, yes a bare majority of incoming solar radiation is IR, the IR portion of outgoing reflected energy is higher.

  79. Paul says: August 2, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    Monckton,

    In your response to those critiquing your analysis, you say that Central England temps. are indicative of long-term global trends. OK, I agree, they do show warming over the last century (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/).

    But in your article, you report “warming trends” and “rates of rise” at this very specific locale, and compare them to global rates, which is not a fair comparison (though a clever one to argue your case) given that there will always be more variability, over any time scale, at a specific locale than over a larger one.

    I suggest you consult with a professor of geospatial statistics next time.

    Let’s make a reasonable assumption that CET temperature trends are generally 2X GMT trends but are not precisely synchronous in time with GMT trends — just like we see today in many locations in mid-latitude zones.

    If we make this reasonable assumption, then CET tells us that within the last 350 years, trends in GMT of roughly 2 C per century lasting a century occurred before 1950; and also that shorter trends in GMT of roughly 0.2 C per decade lasting roughly forty years occurred before 1950.

  80. H Grouse :

    This might help bring you up to speed as to why certain planets temps vary. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

    Our impossibly tiny amount of CO2 and the even smaller amount of change that “might” be attributable to humans does not in anyway come close to the 95% of CO2 in the Venus atmosphere let alone the huge partial pressure difference.

    Jeff

  81. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    “With respect, “highflight56433” may have misunderstood the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.”

    There can NOT be any additional “little radiators” since the number of photons and area the photons cover is fixed.

    (Thought I posted this earlier)

  82. The reason that the GCM’s are so erroneous is because they rely on an invented climate sensitivity which invention is devoid of any foundation in the real world, laboratory experiments and vessels notwithstanding. There are no empiricists in the GCM business, apparently. I repeat, “climate sensitivity” factors are all inventions, plucked from a tangle of misunderstood and misapplied theory.

  83. Jeff D. says:
    August 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    “This might help bring you up to speed”

    The article does not explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury

    Simple comparison.
    Surface of moon (with no atmosphere) facing the sun is 123 degrees C.
    Nowhere on Earth (with atmosphere) get this hot.
    Surface of Mercury (with no atmosphere) facing the sun 426 degrees C
    Surface of Venus (with atmosphere) 462 degrees C.

    After you get thru that, we haven’t even mentioned the variation in distance from the sun between Mercury and Venus.

  84. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm
    ///////

    It is because of pressure, which about 92 to 93bar! If you transcend deep enough into Jupiter’s atmosphere, even though Jupiter is far away from the sun, it becomes hotter than Venus. It is just the pressure.

    Mercury, has all but no atmosphere.

  85. “Paul” is incorrect to say that I compared Central England temperature records to global records. I merely stated that they showed the steepest 40-year and 100-year warming rates in the instrumental record.

    “Paul” is also incorrect to assume that over periods as long as several decades there will be an appreciably greater variability in regional than in global temperature. It is fascinating to see how many and how ingenious are the attempts to suggest that there was something exceptional or unprecedented about the rate of global warming in the late 20th century when there was not.

    As I have demonstrated, over the past 120 years – two full PDO cycles – the Central England and global datasets show trends within one-hundredth of a degree of one another. Before “Paul” bossily recommends that I should consult professors, he should start by consulting the data.

    Mr Arrak is incorrect to state that there was no 0.1 C warming from 1979-1996 in the satellite record. Taking the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, it is indeed present.

    “Milodonharlani” wins the prize for the most interesting comment, pointing out that the growth of sea ice in the Antarctic causes a greater increase in albedo than the equivalent loss of sea ice in the Arctic causes a reduction, because the Antarctic sea ice forms at lower latitudes. Of course, the change in albedo caused by Arctic ice loss is minuscule.

    “Mellyrn” seems muddled about Venus, apparently not appreciating that elementary radiative-transfer calculations establish that the mean effective temperature of a planetary body with bond albedo thrice that of Earth at the Venusian distance from the Sun in the absence of a greenhouse effect would be just 184 K, while the mean actual temperature thanks to the greenhouse effect from CO2 is 737 K.

    The correct scientific position is that the greenhouse effect has been measured repeatedly in the laboratory for CO2, water vapor and many other greenhouse gases, wherefore it exists whether the “slayers” like it or not, as Venus demonstrates. However, in the Earth’s atmosphere complexities such as the non-radiative transports greatly complicate the determination of climate sensitivity, which, though not negligible, is likely to be small. Once the financial incentive to predict doom is taken away from the modelers, no doubt they will make less spectacularly exaggerated predictions than they have.

    “Hunter” resorts to mere yah-boo from behind a cloak of anonymity. I hope the moderators will ensure no repetition.

  86. richardscourtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
    John Finn, justaskin and H Grouse:

    Before global warming stopped you were happy to support the definition of global warming as being rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).

    No I wasn’t, Richard. You are confusing me with AGW mainstream scientists. The temperature observations for the surface and atmosphere are certainly more accurate than OHC but they are a less reliable indicator of “global warming”. ARGO measurements show the oceans have continued to warm over the past 8 years or so. A quick ‘back of the envelope’ calculation suggests that the difference between incoming and outgoing energy is ~0.6 w/m2. Unfortunately because of problems with CERES data we can’t determine whether or not this is due to a TOA imbalance. (e.g. because of an enhanced ghg effect).

    Whatever the reason the ‘imbalance’ is real and while it continues there is a likelihood that warming of the surface and atmosphere will resume at some point in the future. If the oceans stop warming or start cooling then we can state with a great deal of certainty that global warming has stopped.

  87. richard verney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    “It is because of pressure,”
    ..
    If pressure makes things warmer, then…..
    Surface of the moon has no pressure and is 123 degrees C.
    Surface of the earth has 1 atm pressure …….shouldn’t it be warmer than the moon?

  88. markstoval says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Disclaimer I admit that age and eyesight problems might cause me to be more sensitive of the white-space issue than some of the young bucks here, but I would wager that I am not alone.
    ______________
    What? Speak up.

  89. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Richard, you ought to spend a hot summer day at the ocean shore, or walk on that shore in the dead of winter. You’ll appreciate the effect the water has on air temperatures.

    Aren’t you implying here that the water temp is driving the air temperature? If thats the case then why are you arguing the opposite (that the air temp is actually charging the oceans) to explain the pause?

  90. John Finn Re oceans see my 12:36pm post above also note the excellent work of Lyman and Johnson. Their latest compilation of the trends in OHC shows that the oceans are cooling from the top down as we might expect on a world which is just entering a cooling trend. see table 1 at

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf

    Quote
    “Table 1.
    Warming reported as heat flux applied to Earth’s entire surface area (in W m-2) corresponding to trends in annual REP OHCA estimates from unweighted linear fitsfrom benchmark years through 2011 for different depths of integration (left column).
    A benchmark year is defined as the year in which sampling coverage all layers being considered first exceeds 50%, and remains > 50% thereafter. Layer warming trends over time periods during which coverage in a layer is < 50% in any year, indicated here by a dash, are not reported.

    Time Period
    Depth layer 1956–2011 1967–2011 1983–2011 2004–2011
    0–100 m 0.06 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.01 W m-2
    0–300 m 0.18 W m-2 0.24 W m-2 0.19 W m-2
    0–700 m – – 0.46 W m-2 0.30 W m-2
    0–1800 m – – – 0.56 W m-2

    You will note that the heat flux in the 0-100 m level declined almost 90% when the period 1983-2011 is compared with 2004-11
    Large declines between these periods are also seen when the same time periods are compared for 0-300 and 0-700m.
    These numbers show that Trenberth's idea of the missing heat going into the oceans is fanciful.
    It is time to recognize that the output of the IPCC models is useless for forecasting purposes.
    For forecasts of the possible coming cooling based on the natural quasi periodicities seen in the temperature data see several posts at

    http://climatesense-norpg.blogspot.com

  91. AndyZ says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    “Aren’t you implying”

    All I am implying is that Richard cannot disregard the oceans when talking about warming.

  92. Mr Finn continues to assert that the oceans are warming. Unfortunately we have no means of knowing whether that is the case. The Argo buoys – the least ill-resolved evidence we have – show very little increase in ocean heat content in the past decade, though they are far too sparse to allow any safe conclusions to be drawn. The error margins are enormous.

    If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.

  93. It used to be the average of five datasets, now it’s just RSS. Why? And it was 17y and 10 months 2 month ago also. Sure one can move the measured time to get a flat line once again, but won’t the new flat line be hotter than the first one. Hmmm?

  94. CM writes

    Mr Finn is also incorrect to say mentioning the central England temperature is “ridiculous”. CET is a reasonable indication of global trends: it is on the right latitude, and over the past two cycles of the PDO (i.e. 120 years) its trend is within one-hundredth of a degree of the global trend.

    0

    Fair enough, Christopher, but these are the CET trends for the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries.

    1700-1800 -0.025 deg per decade (slight cooling
    1800-1900 0.003 deg per decade ( flat)
    1900-2000 0.065 deg per decade (warming)

    So the 20th century warmed at 20 times the rate of the 19th century and most of that warming was in the last 30 or 40 years. There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.

  95. In answer to “Rising”, I provide a monthly update showing the first of the datasets to be available, which is RSS. I also provide monthly updates on the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets once the UAH value becomes available, and the trend on the mean of those two datasets is compared with the predictions of the IPCC in 1990 and in 2013. And at less regular intervals I provide updates on all five of the principal global-temperature datasets.

    And what all these data show beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the rate at which the world has warmed has been very considerably below what the models had predicted. No amount of spin or diversion will alter that fact: nor, in the end, will even the Marxstream media be able to conceal it from the people.

  96. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    richard verney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    “It is because of pressure,”
    ..
    If pressure makes things warmer, then…..

    Pressure alone doesn’t make something warmer – If you add air to a car’s tire it will heat up, but eventually conduction will bring back to the ambient temperature. The better answer is “It’s because of adiabatic compression” – the change in temperature when a gas is compressed when no heat is added or removed.

    On a planetary scale it’s why the troposphere cools as you climb a mountain.

    On Venus, if you go high in the atmosphere at 1 bar, Earth’s surface pressure, the temperature above Venus will be warm, but tolerable. It’s only if you take a “handful” of that air and lower it to the surface that it becomes so hot.

    I hate to suggest this link, but there’s a lot more at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

  97. Ric Werme says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure. Both the Earth and the Moon receive about the same amount of energy per sq m.

  98. Mr Finn continues to try to introduce diversions from the main point, which is that the world is not warming anything like as fast as the models had predicted. Now he attempts to say that there is no evidence of the Little Ice Age in the central England temperature record from 1700 to the present.

    Sigh. The Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age, was from 1645-1715, almost all of it before the period ingeniously but misleadingly selected by Mr Finn. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate in the entire instrumental record was between 1694 and 1733, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C/century, or more than twice the fastest such rate measured since 1950. And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century. Both of these record high rates of increase occurred before the Industrial Revolution began. And both of them are mentioned in the head posting.

  99. John Finn:

    In my post addressed to you, justaskin and H Grouse at August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am I wrote

    Before global warming stopped you were happy to support the definition of global warming as being rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).

    Thankyou for your reply at August 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm which begins saying

    No I wasn’t, Richard. You are confusing me with AGW mainstream scientists. The temperature observations for the surface and atmosphere are certainly more accurate than OHC but they are a less reliable indicator of “global warming”. ARGO measurements show the oceans have continued to warm over the past 8 years or so. A quick ‘back of the envelope’ calculation suggests that the difference between incoming and outgoing energy is ~0.6 w/m2. Unfortunately because of problems with CERES data we can’t determine whether or not this is due to a TOA imbalance. (e.g. because of an enhanced ghg effect).

    No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.

    I would be grateful for any reference you can give me to your having disputed the definition of global warming prior to the cessation of global warming. I would especially appreciate this reference because this is the second WUWT thread where during this week you have adopted a definition that is not accepted as a method to pretend that global warming has not stopped.

    You see, John Finn, I am familiar with warmunists changing their claims; e.g. anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) will cause heat waves, no cold spells, and AGW will cause droughts, no floods, and AGW will cause more storms, no less storms, and AGW will cause etc..

    And warmunists always claim “We always said that”. So, please show where you said the definition of global warming was wrong prior to global warming having stopped.

    Richard

  100. John Finn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    There is abundant, overwhelming evidence not only of a Little Ice Age, but a Medieval Warm Period before it (warmer than the Modern Warm Period), a Dark Ages Cold Period before that, a Roman Warm Period before that (warmer than the Medieval WP), a Greek Dark Ages Cold Period before that, a Minoan Warm Period before that (warmer than the Roman WP), a cold period before that, an Egyptian Warm Period (about as warm as the Minoan), a cold period before that & the long Holocene Climatic Optimum before that (warmer than the Egyptian & Minoan WPs). Previous interglacials also show the same cycles, as of course so too do the longer glacial phases, but with temperature swings even greater.

    Warming in the 18th century from the depths of the LIA (1690s) was more rapid than in the late 20th century, as also was the rate in the early 20th century. See the CET records below, bearing in mind that like all such climate “data” have been heavily stepped upon by trough-feeding, rent-seeking, scamming, CACA-spewing temperature “adjusters”. If properly adjusted for UHI, cleaner skies, etc, even the CET would probably show a warmer 1930s than 1990s (instead of its ostensible 0.49 degree average cooler 1931-40 v. 1991-2000, if my arithmetic be not in error), as is the case for reality in the USA.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/central-england-temperatures-runaway-warming-during-the-last-decade.html

  101. John Finn says:

    There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.

    That’s on your planet, John, where there probably isn’t evidence of a MWP either.

    But here on Planet Earth, there was a very well documented LIA. It was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. If Mr Finn needs evidence, I can post plenty of links.

    Lord Monckton is also correct when he notes that if the oceans were warming, the atmosphere would also be warming. But the ARGO buoy array — the most accurate measurements of ocean temperature available — show that at most depths the ocean is cooling. That is more empirical evidence showing that global warming has stopped.

  102. John Finn

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1700108

    Henry says

    You simply ignore the fact that recording- and calibration procedures have greatly improved during the past 5 decades. e.g. recording is now done automatically. Indeed, I have challenged [anyone] to show me a re-calibration certificate of a thermometer dated before 1945
    Perhaps you John have one of those certificates that I do not know of?

  103. In answer to Mr Grouse, the Earth is cooler than the Moon because the Earth’s bond albedo is almost thrice that of the Moon, so that a greater fraction of incoming radiation is reflected harmlessly away.

  104. H Grouse says:

    Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure.

    Are you referring to the sunlit part of the moon? Or the dark part, with no sunlight?

    Se the comment by Ric Werme, August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm.

  105. Monckton: If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.

    So you mean the ENSO and PDO cycles have no impact on global temperatures? Surely atmospheric temperatures respond much faster to heat inputs (or imbalances) then the oceans do. How do you explain the spike in global surface temperatures in 1998? And it is precisely that spike that keeps regression lines flat for 17 years… Meanwhile, 2000-2010 was warmer than 1990-2000, which was warmer than 1980-1990.

    Monckton: And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century

    Now this is really cherry-picking data, isn’t it? Besides my previous comment that a particular location is not the globe, you could have easily started with a high year and gone out to a low year (say, 1830-1890), showing that global temperatures decreased at a record rate.

  106. Paul says:

    it is precisely that spike that keeps regression lines flat for 17 years… Now this is really cherry-picking data, isn’t it?

    Paul, a little history is in order: back in 1999, über-Warmist Phil Jones was interviewed. He was asked if global warming had stopped, since at that time there had been no warming for 2 years.

    Jones replied that in order to answer that with statistical accuracy, global warming would have to remain stopped for at least fifteen years from 1997. No doubt Jones thought he was making a safe bet. But in the event, global warming did stop for the 15 years following Jones’ designated base year of 1997. And global warming still remains stopped. There has been no global warming since the Phil Jones’ selected base year of 1997.

    Lately the alarmist crowd has been making the same point you did. They claim that 1997 was cherry-picked. Well, if it was, it was Phil Jones’ cherry-pick. The alarmist contingent would be whooping with joy if global warming had resumed.

    They cannot have it both ways. The alarmist clique was silent during the 15 years following Jones’ starting year of 1997. It is only since the question has been answered with statistical significance that the alarmists began questioning 1997. But it was their baby all along. Now they have to live with it.

  107. Paul says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    Chris is not cherry picking, since the late 17th century was the depths of the Little Ice Age, from which period Earth has been recovering, ie getting warmer, although it is sure to get cold again, since the long term trend (at least 3000 years in length) is down & interglacials eventually end in a new glacial episode. Using 60-year PDO cycles, starting in 1690 or 1700 produces even more rapid warming, despite the remarkably cold years of 1709 & 1740.

    Please bear in mind also that the Holocene has been a cool interglacial. The previous one, the Eemian (130 to 114 Ka), & the long MIS 11 or Holsteinian (~400 Ka) were a lot warmer, without benefit of a Neanderthal or H. heidelbergensis Industrial Age.

  108. in Monckton’s conjecture, that “the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.”, does rely upon Fourier’s hypothesis, using Wien’s Displacement Law. It is a bit tenuous, however Lord Monckton has used this explanation in the past, but as I will explain, this is an error of logic.

    Fourier stated … “The mobility of the air, which is rapidly displaced in every direction [upward by evaporation and convection, sideways by advection, downward by precipitation and subsidence] and which rises when heated [convection], and the radiation of non-luminous heat [châleur obscure: i.e. infrared radiation] into the air, diminish the intensity of the [warming] effects which would take place in a transparent and static atmosphere [evaporation and convection cool the surface, for instance], but do not entirely change their character.

    The decrease of the heat in the higher regions of the air [the upper atmosphere] does not cease, and the temperature can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light [i.e. visible radiation] finds less resistance in penetrating the air than in repassing into the air when converted [on striking the Earth’s surface, by Wien’s displacement law] into non-luminous heat [châleur obscure: i.e. infrared radiation].”

    Monckton asserts then that, “Any honest reader of this passage will recognize that Fourier is indeed here positing the greenhouse effect.”

    This is an error of logic. Greenhouses heat up by the space enclosed by the glass stopping heat escaping due to prevention of convection, and Fourier states that in the atmosphere, convection occurs and indeed that this then causes the surface to cool. So then it is not logical to assert that there is a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, at the same time as there is convection occurring. No greenhouse effect (even in a greenhouse) has anything whatsoever to do with concentrations of CO2 in any such enclosed space. CO2 cannot emit more energy than it absorbs, else we should all be running our “clunkers” upon it, free of charge, and using CO2 to heat our bathwater and our homes.

    So the Fourier was not positing “the greenhouse effect” at all, at least not in the passage which Monckton quotes in his explanations. Monckton often asserts that antagonists overlook the wavelength dependence of the interactions between infrared radiation and greenhouse-gas molecules, but if we look at an absorption wavelength chart, for instance in the book, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate [Roger G. Barry, Richard J Chorley - fp.1968] we can see that the absorption bands for CO2 occur at wavelengths for which there is virtually no energy being emitted from The Earth itself, or indeed incoming from The Sun. How then do these interactions take place, whether there is indeed convection or even if there is not?

    Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)

    There is zero empirical evidence of any so called “greenhouse effect” as it has been called in these pages. Given that CO2 interactions occur at different wavelengths to that of both incoming and outgoing IR Radiation, it seems unlikely then that CO2 is any kind of candidate at all, for any significant variation in the overall heat content in the Earth’s atmosphere, especially when you consider its minute concentration. CO2 is a rare gas.

  109. profitup10 says:
    August 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

    It is time for the people to CLOSE THE EPA before they bankrupt the people and industries.

    I don’t think you “close” a “giant vampire squid (etc)”; you have to kill it.

  110. “Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    Sigh. The Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age, was from 1645-1715, almost all of it before the period ingeniously but misleadingly selected by Mr Finn. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate in the entire instrumental record was between 1694 and 1733, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C/century, or more than twice the fastest such rate measured since 1950. And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century. Both of these record high rates of increase occurred before the Industrial Revolution began. And both of them are mentioned in the head posting.”

    And since that area was not depopulated, due to everyone succumbing to heat, nor turned into a barren wasteland, it’s only logical to assume that in the period BEFORE the rapid rise, it must have been colder…or ‘bad things’ would have happened and made life there impossible.

    These jokers seem to forget the fact that during these ‘unprecedented’ events, life went on. If we are to buy what they are selling, there shouldn’t have been anyone left alive in the area to maintain the temperature record.

  111. Warmist Claptrap says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    IMO CO2 can produce a negligible GHE in dry air. Since water vapor is about 100 times more common over much of the globe than CO2 molecules & because the absorption bands of the two GHGs overlap, any effect from increasing CO2 concentration from three to four molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules would be swamped out in the moist tropics. However at the dry poles, such an increase might have an effect (albeit scarcely measurable), but of course not during the long sunless winters.

  112. My view is that much of the variation in the global temperature anomaly from which we have somewhat reliable data, which is from 1850 until now has been driven by variations in the frequency and intensity of El Niños and that these variations in ENSO are mainly caused by natural drivers.
    With an Artificial Neural Network that I created I’ve been able to establish that the drivers of ENSO variations are dominated by a combinations of tidal and solar electromagnetic forces and I have also been able to establish by which mechanism these forces affects ENSO.
    I have just finished the creation of a Power Point Presentations which describes my findings in detail, that I can show to others.
    Given in my view the importance of what I have found and the implication of this finding, both in forecasting ENSO and for its importance in the AGW debate, I would like to make my findings public in such a way as to make as much damage to the CAGW theory and subsequent policy as possible.
    I would appreciate any ideas how to do this!

  113. Arno! Please break your text blocks into paragraphs!

    [If a writer is submitting from Facebook or similar limited screens and platforms, a "carriage return" (paragraph) is a "submit & send right now" signal.

    However, your request is noted, but we cannot assume what editing is required. .mod]

  114. justaskin: So is there something special about the current pause?

    Yes. Influential scientists predicted an increase in temp of about 0.2C/decade for this period. They furthermore warned that it was necessary for us to switch off of fossil fuels in a big hurry; indeed, some are still warning us of this necessity, despite the obvious failure of their prediction.

  115. Lord M must be keen on recycling as he keeps going back to use the same article – with the same cherry picking of CET data.

    The RSS is one data set that is being used to produce the longest pause.

    Yet he himself posted a quite good article on this site a few days ago showing that based on 5 major data sets the pause started around 2001/2, not 1996.

    Which is it ?

  116. milodonharlani says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    ” IMO CO2 can produce a negligible GHE ”

    But this is my point though. There may be a miniscule effect of some sort, but it cannot be logically called a Greenhouse Effect, for there is no “greenhouse”. There is however energy loss and transference due to convection, as Fourier said, and Monckton quoted previously, yet a greenhouse, a real greenhouse warms, because it largely prevents convection heat losses.

    Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them,

    Again look at the chart, and tell me what is the mechanism for CO2 absorbing energy, from a band where there is practically none, and then amplifying that energy and re-emitting it in another band where we cannot seem to measure that effect?

    Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)

  117. “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…..”

    *facepalm

    “Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?”

    *Bigger facepalm – the oceans have 1,000,000x the heat capacity and so if this was true it would be a FANTASTIC thing – gerbil worming fixed for a billion years.

  118. John Finn: While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.

    The threat that Hansen, the IPCC and others have been warning us of is “global warming”, not “heat accumulation in the deep ocean”, for which there is no evidence implicating humans or CO2 in any way. The threatened “warming” is is not occurring . The fact of non-warming over a long time span of high CO2 concentration when warming was confidently predicted (it’s not too extreme to say “stridently predicted”) is serious evidence that the people doing the warning did not know what they thought that they knew.

  119. dbstealey says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    “Your point?”

    I guess I’ll have to repeat, even though it’s in the whole thread.

    The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
    The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth

    The response was, Venus is warmer due to pressure.
    That argument is countered with, the pressure on Earth is higher than on the Moon.

  120. Warmist Claptrap says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    I certainly agree that “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer, but “upwelling photon capture & partial release downward” isn’t as handy, if more precise. Maybe “hooked blanket with holes in it” effect would be more accurate.

  121. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, thank you again for your good article and patient responses to questions and critiques.

  122. Warmist Claptrap said

    “Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them”

    So what’s your reference for that pearl ?

  123. Bob Tisdale says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    IMO, both oscillations are part of the same cyclical sloshing, ocean-atmosphere-lithosphere process, ultimately primarily driven by the solar activity, which has its own drivers.

  124. “Warmist claptrap” is trying to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect by quibbling about its terminology. The effect is real: get over it, or go back to the “slayers'” website from which you have been quoting. The existence of the effect (whatever one calls it) has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment.

    As for “Paul”, he seems to think that to ask the question “What was the fastest rate of warming over a 100-year period in the instrumental record?” is to cherry-pick. Nice try, but no. And that period, as the head posting and my previous comment made plain, was from 1663-1762, before the Industrial Revolution.. There has been no centennial warming rate as fast as that since.

    “Paul” is also middled about the effect of ocean temperatures on atmospheric temperatures. I had made the point that if the oceans were really warming the atmosphere were warming too, but it is not. “Paul” then asked whether I denied that ENSO warming of the oceans can warm the atmosphere. Well, obviously not, since that fact merely reinforces my original point that if the oceans are warming they will warm the atmosphere: and the atmosphere is not, repeat not, warming – and certainly not warming at anything like the rate the failed computer models had predicted.

    There have been some ingenious attempts at diverting attention away from the main point. Mr Abbott, for instance, asks a second question about why I update the RSS record every month, even though the question is answered in the head posting and again in this thread. All these attempts to derail the simple message have failed as much as the models themselves have failed. The game is up.

  125. Lord Monckton’s method of seeking the greatest expanse in time between today and some point in history where the trend is zero got me to wondering. Why zero? What happens if we look for non-zero trend lengths? Next question – is this really not cherry picking? I’m not claiming it is but I also don’t see how it is not.

  126. The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the [sun facing] surface of Earth

    I’ll take this one fellas. Albedo. The moon absorbes 88% of it’s incident solar energy, converting it to surface heat. The Earth absorbs 63%.

  127. dp says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    IMO, his procedure is the opposite of cherry picking, ie letting the numbers speak for themselves to reveal their own start point, rather than choosing one to serve one’s own ends. Chris looks to see how far back in time there has been no statistically significant warming, to include actual cooling.

  128. papiertigre says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    ” Albedo.”
    ..
    That doesn’t explain why the surface of Venus is warmer than the sun facing surface of Mercury…


    (PS……..fi this were Poker, you’d know my hole card is the distance difference between Mercury and Venus)

  129. Its interesting that none of the trends shown have the observed even WITHIN the predicted ranges right from the start. One wonders how anyone supporting AGW could hold their heads up.

  130. Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christopher, even though the alarmists state there has been an increase in extreme weather the data show otherwise, from tornadoes to hurricanes to drought and flooding. Globally there is not sig trend in any of these parameters. I know you’re just bolstering your argument which is fine and I agree with, but let’s not give them any undeserved, albeit, clandestine credibility.

  131. Are the oceans warming? This post by Willis Eschenbach who analysed ARGO data between 2005 and 2012 suggests they are

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/

    Willis writes

    The trend in this data (6.9 ± 0.6 e+22 joules per decade) agrees quite well with the trend in the Levitus OHC data, which is about 7.4 ± 0.8 e+22 joules per decade.

    dbstealey says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    John Finn says:
    There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.

    That’s on your planet, John, where there probably isn’t evidence of a MWP either. But here on Planet Earth, there was a very well documented LIA. It was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene.

    You’ve either not followed the discussion or you’re having trouble understanding. I can’t be bothered explaining it all to you but my point is that the CET doesn’t provide any evidence for a LIA – at least not one that lasted through the 18th and 19th centuries since the CE temperature trends for both those centuries are flat.

    Lord Monckton is also correct when he notes that if the oceans were warming, the atmosphere would also be warming.

    Not true. Roy Spencer has shown clearly how ocean heating can occur without the atmosphere warming.

    richardscourtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm
    John Finn:
    No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.

    I have posted many times on WUWT but never on JoNova’s blog. I doubt if I’ve provided a definition for global warming (your other point). I’ve always assumed the “sceptic” side were insistent that OHC was a more important measure. Roger Pielke was constantly making this very point. No matter – it is the most important measure and according to ARGO the oceans are continuing to accumulate heat.

    On a separate point you seem to imply that I am a “warmunist” – whatever that is supposed to mean. I think I can guess so let me, then, draw your attention to this WUWT post from November 2009.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

    Scroll down the page and you will find this paragraph

    Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

    So, in December 2004 (5 years before climategate) I was challenging Michael Mann about the “hide the decline” trick. Richard, I try to attack the “warmunists” where they are weak. The warming may not be as great as predicted (or projected) but it is still happening. To keep arguing that it isn’t is inviting trouble further down the line. Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer but it shouldn’t be extreme or catastrophic and may even be beneficial.

  132. H Grouse says at August 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Surface of moon (with no atmosphere) facing the sun is 123 degrees C.
    Nowhere on Earth (with atmosphere) get this hot.
    Surface of Mercury (with no atmosphere) facing the sun 426 degrees C
    Surface of Venus (with atmosphere) 462 degrees C.

    Nope.
    Just Google it.
    “Temperature of the moon” gives try it

    “During the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius). The Earth, which has an atmosphere, has much more comfortable temperatures..

    So an atmosphere makes a big difference to the stability of the temperature of a planet.

    And a mini-planet like Mercury can not hold an atmosphere (not enough mass, thus not enough gravity).
    So it can’t keep the energy that happens to irradiate the sphere.

    So, on average it is colder.

  133. 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.

    The new divergence problem. If it cools then it is all over. Or they will claim global cooling is caused by global warming.

  134. Warmist Claptrap says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm
    Monckton often asserts that antagonists overlook the wavelength dependence of the interactions between infrared radiation and greenhouse-gas molecules, but if we look at an absorption wavelength chart, for instance in the book, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate [Roger G. Barry, Richard J Chorley - fp.1968] we can see that the absorption bands for CO2 occur at wavelengths for which there is virtually no energy being emitted from The Earth itself, or indeed incoming from The Sun. How then do these interactions take place, whether there is indeed convection or even if there is not?

    That spectrum is the IR as observed from space, the reason there is little energy emitted in the 15micron band is because it has been absorbed by CO2!

    Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)

    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png

  135. M Courtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    “So an atmosphere makes a big difference to the stability”

    Venus has an atmosphere, Mercury does not. Mercury is cooler
    Earth has an atmosphere, the Moon does not…The Earth is cooler.
    Earth has higher albedo than Moon…….Venus has higher albedo than Mercury

    And I still haven’t played my hole card !!!!

  136. The latest analysis of ocean heat content from the surface to the bottom, is a rise of only 0.2 W/m2/year. That’s nothing. It’s within the error margin, within what might be considered as simply a random variable.

    The atmosphere/land/ice is only accumulating another 0.035 W/m2/year.

    The original climate theory projections was that the total of these two numbers would be between 1.2 W/m2/year and 1.8 W/m2/year.

    So, no temperature increase, no (or only 15% of the projected) energy accumulation and what do we have.

    A falsified theory. No ifs and or buts. It’s done.

    There is just too much egg-on-the-face for the pro-warmers to climb down now, but they have to at some point very very soon. And all you pro-warmers out there need to start preparing for that now.

  137. My Gosh, H Grouse.

    I’ve just seen further down the comments that you’ve not just got the numbers wrong – you’ve also oversimplified the physics.

    Temperature is a result of more than one factor!
    ☺It’s not just pressure of the atmosphere.
    ☺It’s not just the proximity to the star (assuming the same star).

    It is both -(and maybe the composition of the atmosphere – but we have no evidence of the “maybe”).

    So Mercury and Venus do not prove anything about Earth. There are too many variables,
    Yet only Earth matters to us locals.

  138. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    Albedos:

    Mercury

    0.142 geometric
    0.068 Bond

    Venus

    0.67 geometric
    0.90 Bond

    Moon

    0.113 geometric
    0.123 Bond

    Earth

    0.367 geometric
    0.306 Bond

  139. Skeptical Science asserted some years back that co2 was then (and now?) the main driver of global warming. It looks like the driver was thrown out of the driver’s seat. Embarrassing shite.

    “…While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come….”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

    If 17 years is short term then so is everything they claim of less that 17 years. A hurricane here, and a drought there.

  140. H Grouse, Google temperatures of planets.

    You have got a little confused between average temperatures and actual temperatures (which matter).

    If the temperature varies between 123 Celsius and -233 Celsius then the average has a completely different significance than to variation between 23 Celsius and 13 Celsius.

    The average is not the metric to use as it is affected by:
    ☻The energy input.
    ☻The energy output.
    ☺The duration in the atmosphere.

    And the last is measured by – The range of temperatures.

  141. M Courtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    “So Mercury and Venus do not prove anything about Earth”

    I’m not looking to prove anything about Earth, I’m just trying to understand why the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury.

    Pressure doesn’t explain it (see Earth/Moon analogy)
    Albedo doesn’t explain it (see milodonharlani numbers posted at 4:47 pm0

    And I still have my hole card to play !!!!

  142. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm…

    You decided to select UAH. Fine. But as Lord Monckton noted, there are problems with that.

    I prefer the best satellite record, which is RSS.

  143. M Courtney says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    “You have got a little confused between average temperatures ”

    Mercury sun facing side 427 degrees C dark side -173 degrees C….average 127 degrees C
    Venus surface temp is 462 degrees C everywhere.

    Mmmmmmm….thanks for making this even more interesting .

  144. dbstealey says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    “I prefer the best satellite record, which is RSS.”

    Best?…..I contend that neither one is any better than the other

  145. Before responding to any more posts below perhaps I should say that I am very familiar with the CET record and am aware there is a sharp rise in temperatures between ~1690 and ~1730 (so *sigh* all you like, Christopher Monckton). However, I also know that the precision and accuracy of late 17th century/early 18th century readings was not too great (temperatures were recorded to the nearest 0.5 degree). Also, as far as I was aware, the LIA did not only cover the maunder minimum period. The 18th and 19th century trends are virtually flat. There are fluctuations – probably due to ocean influences – but they are cyclical and pretty much sum to zero (look at a CET graph),

    Right …

    milodonharlani says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:06 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    Warming in the 18th century from the depths of the LIA (1690s) was more rapid than in the late 20th century, as also was the rate in the early 20th century. See the CET records below,

    There was very little warming from the start of the 18th century up to ~1900. That’s 200 years. Check it out – graphically and/or by linear regression.

    So are you saying the LIA ended in 1700 or 1730?

  146. The average Earth surface temperature rises 10C from the morning sunrise to mid-afternoon high temperature around 3:30 pm or in 9.5 hours.

    How much would that temperature rise if the average time to the peak temperature of the day was 4,617 hours like it is on Venus.

    If you crunch the numbers on how solar joules are accumulating each hour, the Earth surface temperature would rise to 450C ( the same temperature as Venus) if the rotation rate gave us days which were 243 days long like they are on Venus. That is real physics where joules accumulate and drawdown over time as they do in the real universe.

  147. Bill Illis says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.

    That would be nice if the Earth did the same thing.

  148. James Abbott says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Where did this “pearl” come from?

    From Fact, Logic and Law.

    it is as I stated above – – –
    “yet a greenhouse, a real greenhouse warms, because it largely prevents convection heat losses.
    Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them.

    The second statement is a corollary of the first.

    Yet this is not how the air in the free atmosphere of the Planet Earth behaves, because it is not a closed construction with walls and a roof. The simplistic greenhouse analogy is fatuous and in fact a logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and it is a causal oversimplification, and a Ludic fallacy into the bargain. In Law we should say, onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, that the burden of proof lies in the proponent of some hypothesis. Where is the evidence that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse does?

    It is this widely held erroneous assumption which gives rise to the vain hope that humans might control the temperature of a Planet, by altering the amount some parameter. In a greenhouse, we we might increase the ventilation, and allow heat to escape by convection. We cannot do this in a Planet’s atmosphere, because it is already open all the way to outer space.

    It is for you, the proponents of the Earth Atmosphere “CO2 greenhouse” conjecture, to provide repeatable empirical evidence to support this hypothesis, and with logically sound explanation. This is not really a question of complex atmospheric physics at all. Rather it is a series of fallacies of logic and faulty syllogisms, failures of inductive reasoning.

  149. naturally, the temperature data doesn’t figure at all at NYT. they have other things on their mind :

    3 Aug: NYT: Shattering Myths to Help the Climate
    Economic View by Robert H. Frank
    (A version of this article appears in print on August 3, 2014, on page BU6 of the New York edition)
    Each new climate-change study seems more pessimistic than the last. This May and June, for example, were the hottest ones on record for the planet. Storms and droughts occur with increasing frequency. Glaciers are rapidly retreating, portending rising seas that could eventually displace hundreds of millions of people.
    Effective countermeasures now could actually ward off many of these threats at relatively modest cost. Yet despite a robust scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are at the root of the problem, legislation to curb them has gone nowhere in Congress….
    Myth 2: Slowing the pace of climate change would be prohibitively difficult
    The most effective remedy would be a carbon tax, which would raise the after-tax price of goods in rough proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. Gasoline would become more expensive, piano lessons would not…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/upshot/shattering-myths-to-help-the-climate.html?_r=0

  150. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:45 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm
    The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.
    ——————

    What would happen on Earth if the surface temperature on the day-side rose to 450C. The Oceans boil, the gases boil out of the land surface, a huge thick atmosphere results. The winds from the day-side to the night-side pick up substantially and the huge thick atmosphere provides the same temperature anywhere on the planet. Just like on Venus.

  151. H Grouse says:

    The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
    The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth…

    1. Unlike Mercury, Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which smooths out the diurnal ∆T.

    2. Earth has an extremely dense atmosphere compared with the Moon.

    Therefore, neither comparison applies.

    =====================

    John Finn,

    The Little Ice Age [LIA] was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene. That fact is reflected in ice cores and in contemporary accounts. Pretending the LIA didn’t happen is crazy.

    The planet has been warming as it naturally emerges from the LIA. Any other explanation for the warming needs supporting evidence, in the form of verifiable, testable measurements showing that the fraction of a degree warming attributed to AGW is not due to some other cause. AGW is the alarmists’ conjecture, and they have to defend it. But so far, their entire defense has been in the form of assertions. We need more than that, if we are expected to spend $Trillions on a wild goose chase.

  152. John Finn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    No, I’m saying that within cold periods there are intervals of rapid warming, as for instance during the Dark Ages Cold Period, which saw the rapid Sui-Tang warming, before the Medieval Warm Period. It’s the same as secular & cyclical trends in the stock market. Often during secular down or up trends, there are powerful counter trends before the dominant trend returns.

    The LIA lasted until around 1850, when temperatures regained the long term trend line, which is down. But its trough was the 1690s during the Maunder Minimum, followed by a rapid rebound, followed by a return to the secular cold trend, especially during the Dalton Minimum.

    The point is that there is nothing in the least bit unusual about 20th century warming. Indeed, the rates of warming in the pre-CO2 cycle, c. 1927-46, was about the same as during the supposed CO2 cycle, c. 1977-96. A plateau to cool cycle, c. 1947-76, occurred in between these two natural warming cycles, just as is happening again now. There was also a cycle of rapid warming in the late 19th century, coming out of the LIA, followed by another such flat to cooling phase, all related to natural oceanic oscillations, primarily driven by the sun.

  153. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Ric Werme says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure. Both the Earth and the Moon receive about the same amount of energy per sq m.

    First, thank you to all my “assistants.”

    The Earth and Moon are so different I cringe whenever someone tries to compare them. There was that awful paper a few years that tried and got far more press and commentary than it should have. I may have repressed enough of my memory of it so I’ll have trouble finding it again.

    The other comments have provided many of the reasons. I don’t think one of the important answers has come out – the Moon has a synodic day (the time from noon to noon) of 29.5 days. Imagine what Death Valley might become 14 Earth days of sunlight.

    Next, note the massive role that convection plays in tempering the Earth’s temperature. A typical clear day here in New Hampshire starts out with a temperature inversion and a thin cold layer of air in the valleys. As the Sun heats the land, conduction heats the air and things warm up quickly. Soon the air column develops instability and convection mixes the surface air with thousands of feet of air above ground. Wind picks up, as the wind aloft can readily come down to the surface due to convection trying to produce neutral buoyancy. This much larger air mass greatly slows the temperature climb, but we typically hit the highest temperature of the day in the afternoon after the peak heating of our 24 hour day.

    This is so utterly different than conditions on the Moon that there’s no reason to compare them. Our atmosphere has much more in common with places like Venus, Jupiter, and Titan than it does with our Moon’s infinitesimal atmosphere.

    Apollo era joke wrt the Lunar Lander’s descent engine – “First they bring an atmosphere and then they pollute it!”


    H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    And I still have my hole card to play !!!!

    Wow, what an opening. :-)

  154. Bill Illis says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    “What would happen on Earth”

    Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth. I’m in search of the explanation why Venus is so much warmer than Mercury.

    The sun facing surface of Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you use the “average” temperature of Mercury, you only make the problem worse. If you talk about albedo, Venus is HIGHER than Mercury……and the pressure argument doesn’t hold

  155. New Zealand Herald makes a bold claim in the headline:

    3 Aug: New Zealand Herald: Tuvalu climate change family win NZ residency appeal
    A Tuvalu family has been granted New Zealand residency after claiming it would be affected by climate change if it returned home.
    It is the first successful application for residency on humanitarian grounds in which climate change has featured, but the Immigration and Protection Tribunal said the family had strong ties to New Zealand.
    Environmental law expert Vernon Rive said the tribunal would be keen to avoid opening the floodgates to other climate change refugee claims…
    Immigration lawyer Trevor Zohs, who represented the family with Carole Curtis, told the Herald on Sunday the effects of climate change should be recognised.
    “A lot of people are affected by illness when they go back, they get sick from drinking polluted water. The island is porous so even when the water is not flooding, it penetrates the rocks under the land.”…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303331

    elsewhere, it’s a differenty story!

    3 Aug NewsTalk: Tuvalu family’s residency not standard for climate refugees
    The granting of residency to a Tuvalu family who claimed to be affected by climate change won’t pave the way for climate refugees.
    The Immigration and Protection Tribunal took the family’s strong ties to New Zealand into account, when accepting their residency application.
    But the residency was granted on humanitarian grounds – not because of climate change or refugee status…

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/220236564-tuvalu-family-s-residency-not-standard-for-climate-refugees

  156. The trick with Mosher is not to reply to his postings. Im amazed none of you have coped on to this. LOL idem with Zeke ect… Their trick is to divert attention from fatal AGW postings ie like no temperature trends, INCREASING NH ice etc..

  157. H Grouse says:
    August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    “What would happen on Earth”

    Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth. I’m in search of the explanation why Venus is so much warmer than Mercury.

    The sun facing surface of Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you use the “average” temperature of Mercury, you only make the problem worse. If you talk about albedo, Venus is HIGHER than Mercury……and the pressure argument doesn’t hold
    ———————-

    Mercury lost its atmosphere because it is has so little gravity and it is too close to the Sun.

    On the Earth surface, the atmospheric collision rate is 7 billion collisions per second right now at surface pressure.

    If Earth had a retro-grade spin rate like Venus, the atmosphere would accumulate something like 92 extra bars of pressure and the collision rate would rise to 1.0 trillion collisions per second. ie, it would take forever (well 200 days or so) for solar energy to be emitted back to space after it reached the planet versus the current Earth situation where it is only 42 hours and on Mercury it is only about 1 minute.

  158. John Finn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    I might add that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by spectacular solar activity, ie the 1859 Carrington super flare & the eerie Northern Lights at the US “Civil War” battlefield of Fredericksburg in December 1862, which were seen far into the South. Telegraphy was effected.

    This level of activity stands in stark contrast to the quiescent sun of the Spörer, Maunder & Dalton Minima of the Little Ice Age.

  159. Werner Brozek says:
    > August 2, 2014 at 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.

    Me too. I downloaded the data and applied the spreadsheet slope() function. I get +0.0000124318 per year from October 1996. So the cooling/zero trend only goes back to November, i.e. 213 months. I infer that the problem is that Lord Monckton used a spreadsheet (or whatever program) that displays 4, or fewer, digits after the decimal point. In that case, one would see zero as the result at October 1996. I would call the string at 213 months.

  160. dp says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    Lord Monckton’s method of seeking the greatest expanse in time between today and some point in history where the trend is zero got me to wondering. Why zero? What happens if we look for non-zero trend lengths? Next question – is this really not cherry picking? I’m not claiming it is but I also don’t see how it is not.

    Whether or not it’s cherry picking seems irrelevant, since there is no global temperature. It’s essentially an “angels on the head of a pin” argument.

  161. 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.

    These data are unreliable as shown below and shouldn’t be used.

    See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf

    From the Introduction:

    “Up to 1722 available instrumental records fail to overlap and Manley needed to use non-instrumental weather diaries and refer to the instrumental series for Utrecht compiled by Labtijn (1945) in order to make the monthly CET series complete. Between 1723 and the 1760s there were no gaps in the composite instrumental records, but the observations generally were taken in unheated rooms rather than with a truly outdoor exposure. Manley (1952) used a few outdoor temperatures, observations of snow or sleet, and likely temperatures given the wind direction, to establish relationships between the unheated room and outdoor temperatures: these relationships were used to adjust the monthly unheated room data. Daily temperatures in unheated rooms are, however, not reliably convertable to daily outdoor values because of the slow thermal response of the rooms. For this reason no daily series truly representative of CET can begin before about 1770.”

  162. Phil. says:
    August 2, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Still more reliable than the CACA practice of interpolating imaginary temperatures & keeping alive fictional zombie stations, which can “record” whatever the high priests want the entrails to say.

  163. I was just looking at the sea surface temps and noted the warm pool has almost disappeared again in region 3-4 while region 4 remains cool. Looks like the heat has again gone missing and the threat of El Nino is again El NADA….

    We are again looking at going negative on the ENSO scale.

    I am not so sure about the presumption Monckton and others have made about having an El Nino.

  164. dbstealey says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    ” *1Unlike Mercury, Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which smooths out the diurnal ∆T.”

    The smoothing out on Venus does not explain why Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you smooth out the difference between the sun facing side of Mercury with the dark side, the “average” temperature of Mercury drops 300 degrees C. The temperature on Venus is still HOTTER than when the sun is directly overhead on the surface of Mercury.

    “2. Earth has an extremely dense atmosphere compared with the Moon.”
    ..
    And Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Mercury. That just makes the analogy even better.

  165. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:42 pm
    Mr Finn continues to assert that the oceans are warming. Unfortunately we have no means of knowing whether that is the case. The Argo buoys – the least ill-resolved evidence we have – show very little increase in ocean heat content in the past decade, though they are far too sparse to allow any safe conclusions to be drawn. The error margins are enormous.

    If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.

    This is a point I have challenged warmists on several times, and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. If the CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping additional infrared energy, how does it miraculously get sucked into the ocean without first warming the atmosphere itself?

  166. Ric Werme says:
    August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    “The Earth and Moon are so different”

    Yes they are.
    However, you have not answered the question (or have simply not paid attention to the thread.)
    I want to know why the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.

    The differences between Venus and Mercury are very similar to the differences between the Earth and the Moon.

  167. Bill Illis says:
    August 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    “Mercury lost its atmosphere”

    That fact does not explain why the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.

  168. Walter Dnes says:
    August 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm
    Me too. I downloaded the data and applied the spreadsheet slope() function. I get +0.0000124318 per year from October 1996.

    I took another look at the graph and it clearly says 0.00/cent, which is of course 0.0000/year. And as it turns out, anything below 0.00005 becomes 0.0000. In my posts, I have decided that the slope must be negative for my start year, however to my knowledge, this has never been defined by anyone that it must be this way.
    I now believe this is a judgement call and either 213 or 214 months can be easily defended in this case.

  169. It’s the rotation speed of the planet that matters – determines how much sunlight hits an area

  170. H Grouse says, The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
    The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth
    The response was, Venus is warmer due to pressure.
    That argument is countered with, the pressure on Earth is higher than on the Moon.

    [facepalm]

    The relationship between pressure and temperature in the atmosphere is nice and linear — but only as long as the atmosphere is thick ENOUGH. Ever look at a chart of a “standard atmosphere”?

    or do your own search on the phrase, “standard atmosphere”. You’ll get much the same picture, though.
    Notice the lovely linearity down near the surface. Notice that when the air gets seriously thin — like Mars, say, or the exosphere of the Moon — the relationship is all over the place. You need to ignore this in order to make your argument.

    Nor is mellyrn nearly as muddled about Venus as Sv. Monckton and H Grouse appear to be as to why it’s so cold at the top of Mt Everest compared to how hot it is at the bottom of Death Valley, even though Mt Everest is almost 9 degrees — almost 10% — closer to the equator than Death Valley is. It’s supposed to get warmer as you move from the poles towards the equator, right? So, why’s Mt Everest colder, so much colder?

    It’s the atmospheric pressure — Death Valley’s air pressure is TRIPLE that of the peak of Mt Everest, and therefore is much warmer despite being so much farther north. And, Sv. Monckton, the temperature of Venus at 49 km altitude — the point at which the atmospheric pressure drops to EQUAL that of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level (and obtw, did either of you notice that Venus has no “sea” level?) — is a mere 337K (not 737K) which is EXACTLY what you get when you do the inverse-square math for the incoming energy and then the fourth-root S-B math for the associated temperature and compare pressure apples to pressure apples. No accounting for chemistry of the atmosphere at all, no GHG effect seen despite all that CO2.

    Albedo, you say? Then it’s a magical albedo, that just perfectly offsets your alleged GHG effect. Interesting point: since Venus is covered in clouds and not by a solid roof, the albedo effect must be inversely related to altitude. Surely you’ve flown enough to notice that as the plane approaches the tops of the clouds, it gets lighter? This is because light (energy) is penetrating the thinner, upper layers. But if you do the same inverse-square/S-B math to compare Earth at, say, 0.5atm, 0.4atm, or 0.2atm with equivalent altitudes on Venus, the higher altitudes, where there should be LESS albedo offset and therefore more CO2-dominated warming, it’s actually slightly COOLER up there than the simple math calls for. So, sir, somehow your albedo, while perfect at 49 km to offset the GHG effect, is even MORE effective up where there is actually LESS of it. Odd.

    The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.

    The temperature at the surface of the Earth is 1.5degC in the morning, 1.5degC at noon, 1.5degC at sunset, and 1.5degC at midnight, and 1.5degC at the north pole, winter or summer.

    The surface of the Earth is, of course, the lithosphere, known to us airbreathing chauvinists as “the bottom of the ocean”.

    Again, an effect of high pressure. Though, since the one is a liquid and the other a gas, their actual temperatures do not directly compare; instead, we are here comparing the STABILITY of the temperatures.

    (And now I’m afraid I’ve confused H Grouse by, in one case, comparing atmosphere to atmosphere, in the matter of actual temperature; and in the other comparing atmosphere to hydrosphere, in the matter of -stability- of temperature. If anyone else sees a problem with how I’ve written, do let me know.)

  171. H. Grouse says:

    The differences between Venus and Mercury are very similar to the differences between the Earth and the Moon.

    No, they’re not. I’ll let you figure out why [hint: the moon orbits the earth].

    And:

    …Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Mercury.

    That’s exactly what I posted above. I hope we’re not dealing with crazy “chuck” by another name. The irrational arguments sound the same.

  172. milodonharlani says, So while, yes a bare majority of incoming solar radiation is IR, the IR portion of outgoing reflected energy is higher.

    Ookay? But I wasn’t thinking that “how much relevant IR comes in from the Sun” and “how much relevant IR is outgoing from the Earth” made any difference, so long as any IR in the relevant wavelengths does come from the Sun.

    Putting it simplistically (because I am simple, not because I think you are): imagine that 400 CO2 molecules in every million atmospheric molecules literally intercept 400 of every million IR photons (in the relevant wavelengths, but I’m going to stop adding that phrase). Half of them get “trapped” here, because the excited CO2 molecules calm back down isotropically, while the other half continue on towards space — if they came from planetside; otherwise, half get “blocked” from ever reaching the planet, for a net gain of zero.

    The 400 CO2 molecules do not care if the IR photons are outbound, inbound, or going sideways (off a wall, or a neighboring molecule?) “Isotropic” means that half — actually slightly less, since the CO2 is ABOVE the surface, so a reradiated photon could head slightly “downward” but still miss the Earth — head for the planet, and slightly more than half head for space. The higher the CO2 molecule is, the more likely its reradiated photon is to reach space, rather than Earth.

    If there were no IR of the relevant wavelength coming in from the Sun, then there would be none to “reflect” away — it would then be just slightly-less-than-half of the outbound IR being trapped here, and then you just might have a warming.

    The only way I can see CO2 contributing at all to warming is at night, for this reason: there is no incoming IR on the night side for CO2 to “block” from getting planetside, but there is outgoing IR for it to “trap”.

    And yet, Venus. Venus clearly begs to differ.

  173. Re: Bill Illis says:August 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    “If Earth had a retro-grade spin rate like Venus, the atmosphere would accumulate something like 92 extra bar ..”

    Opening myself to the risk of sounding like a fanboy, Bill, this was a fantastic comment. Very clear. Very teacher-like. I’ve read through this thread and followed its three primary debates, learning as I read. Most of the comments are great, but yours resonated and capped the Mercury-Venus-moon-Earth debate well.

  174. Damn.

    I was hoping that we’d be at 18 years of no warming at the end of August so that we could throw a “Denier Bier” party in Sydney to celebrate the coming of age…..

    If we’ve had to drop the first month of the series, I’ve booked the party too early.

    Oh well, we’ll find another reason to drink anyway. Details here, if you happen to be in Sydney at the time.

    http://thenewaustralian.org/?cat=44

  175. John Finn – “The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade.”

    Let me guess…
    Joules rate was derived from Proxy data based on coral ring data from a few dozen Staghorn corals, while tossing out hundreds of samples from neighboring Elkhorn corals, with calibration done by a few years of on-shore solar cell output.
    /sarc

  176. John Finn: ‘However, I also know that the precision and accuracy of late 17th century/early 18th century readings was not too great (temperatures were recorded to the nearest 0.5 degree).”

    Surprise! It ain’t got no better…
    70.6% of surveyed USHCN stations (1007 surveyed out of 1221) had an estimated error greater than 2 deg C based on NOAA’s guidelines.

    http://www.surfacestations.org

  177. H Grouse seems very confused about the temperature of Venus and what causes it and why it is hotter than Mercury. We’ve known the gas laws for a couple of hudred years. We also have known why Venus is so hot since the late 1960’s/1970’s and was actually measured by the Russian landers/probes and an American orbiter.

  178. Off topic I guess but through the eye of faith is the slope of the arctic beginning to flatten out already?

    Must be cold weather up there right now.

    .

  179. Phil

    you say;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1700221

    I met up with David Parker at the Met office at the end of last year.

    His work was concerned with creating a daily temperature which only becomes possible to reconstruct from that later date.

    Whereas Manleys work was in ascertaining a monthly one from 1659.
    As It brings in all sorts of records from instruments to observations to scientific studies it is actually seen as a pretty good and accurate analysis of what went on during the period.

    As with ALL historic reconstructions we should take the accuracy to tenths of a degree with a pinch of salt .

    As you know Phil Jones looked at the period ending 1740 and concluded that the 1730’s were the warmest decade in the record until the 1990’s. The temperatures in the following decade have since fallen back again . I have previously cited this paper to you and also commented that it caused Phil Jones to believe that natural variations were greater than he had previously thought.

    tonyb

  180. Jeff Alberts says:

    Whether or not it’s cherry picking seems irrelevant, since there is no global temperature. It’s essentially an “angels on the head of a pin” argument.

    Before multicellular life, there were times when the ocean temperature reached 40C. I think you might reconsider your “angels…” argument if that happened today, regardless of whether there is a single, unique measure of the planetary temperature.

  181. Patrick,

    Right you are. I don’t know why H Grouse can’t understand the basics. It seems everyone else can.

    ============================

    TNA,

    Thank you for that link. It’s nice to see WUWT getting some international recognition.

  182. H. Grouse, you are asking a question that shows you are about three levels of physics knowledge below the point at which even a clear explanation would make any sense. When I get some time I want to write at length about this matter, but for here and now, a few basic facts.

    The relevant temperature of a radiating object is the temperature at the radiating surface, not at “the surface” (meaning the solid surface). At different frequencies, this radiating surface will be at different altitudes. On Earth, the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, so for visible light, the real surface is the radiating surface. In the CO2 absorption band, it is almost to the top of atmosphere, because that band is saturated. Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.) Then, as others point out, rotation, water, clouds, etc., all have further influences. In short, your attempts to extract an “explanation” for the differences you see between airless and atmospheric bodies is based on an extremely muddled lack of understanding of the physics involved. You need to ask your question in a forum pitched at a much more basic level. In this thread, at least, the cruel truth is that you are just cluttering the discussion.

  183. Thank you Christopher for this post.
    Please could you or any other poster demonstrate the actual climate sensitivity in respect of the last 30 years due the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
    My guess is that it’s Zero :-)

  184. “dbstealey says:

    August 3, 2014 at 12:14 am”

    It’s rather incredible really isn’t it? I’ve known these facts since I was 8. In fact when I was in primary school in the UK, we used to have afternoon story time. During one reading by the teacher I was “doodling”. Teacher was annoyed and called me up to the front of the class to explain to him (Mr. Harris) and the class what I was doing. I was doodling a CME/solar flare. After explaining what it was, I was allowed to go back to my seat.

  185. Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) says: “Given in my view the importance of what I have found and the implication of this finding, both in forecasting ENSO and for its importance in the AGW debate, I would like to make my findings public in such a way as to make as much damage to the CAGW theory and subsequent policy as possible.”

    The first problem you’ll encounter is that warmists view ENSO as noise, not as a contributor to global warming, so you will be ignored even if you’re correct.

    Second problem, I read the post at your blog as far as your statement, “The only mechanism by which ENSO can be driven by changes in Earth’s rotation is by variations in the tidal force.”

    That of course is incorrect. The coupled ocean-atmosphere mechanisms that drive ENSO are well understood and they do not need to be “driven by changes in Earth’s rotation…by variations in the tidal force”.

    • 1: “That of course is incorrect. The coupled ocean-atmosphere mechanisms that drive ENSO are well understood”

      No, the main drivers that drive ENSO are not well understood. In fact they are ignored. With the main drivers I mean tidal effects and electromagnetic changes in solar activity. One may call them the steering forces of ENSO that are working in the background. The notion the ENSO forcing best can be described as Gaussian Noise or with some form of Chaos Theory as suggested by the IPCC is phony.
      Of course the dynamic and its forcing as described with ENSO models with effects such as Kelvin wave, Walker circulations or Bjerknes feedbacks are still valid.

      With the ANN I built, I’ve followed the data rather than preconceived notions.
      Because today’s ENSO forecasters don’t include the main ENSO drivers in their ENSO models they are unable to make reliable ENSO forecasts with a time span longer than 2 to 3 months in advance, even with ever more powerful computers.
      I’m able to make reliable ENSO forecast years in advance with my ANN projection although I have to admit that the results don’t include high frequency variations, only low frequency result. Nevertheless, the next large El Niño event is going to occur during the year 2018. I think it is going to be similar to the El Niño of 2010.
      I now have daily data for solar electromagnetic changes although with some data with some gaps and I have daily data over the positions and distance of the Moon and the Sun which lets me calculate the tidal force with high precision. Hopefully with that I could be able to get results with high frequency variations, right.

      2: I now that I’m going to by the most part being ignored by the climate scientist crowd.
      The only ways to stop them and their green policies are if the none warming continues, we enter a cooling period or if we continue to pond them with evidence science, backedup with empirical data and reproducible data and software code.

  186. Perhaps there should be some moderation of the ‘Off Topic’ people.
    Not that I’m saying that they’re here simply to distract from the topic. mind you.

  187. John Finn:

    You begin your post at August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm saying

    Before responding to any more posts

    Well, perhaps you could take time to answer my post at August 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm.

    It replied to assertions you made to me by saying and asking

    No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.

    I would be grateful for any reference you can give me to your having disputed the definition of global warming prior to the cessation of global warming. I would especially appreciate this reference because this is the second WUWT thread where during this week you have adopted a definition that is not accepted as a method to pretend that global warming has not stopped.

    As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.

    Richard

  188. H Grouse:

    At August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm you say

    Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth.

    Yes, and many have noticed that.
    Your purpose seems to be to troll this thread from its subject and onto anything else that you can.

    Richard

  189. dbstealey says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    John Finn,

    The Little Ice Age [LIA] was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene. That fact is reflected in ice cores and in contemporary accounts. Pretending the LIA didn’t happen is crazy.

    1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.
    2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless. The flooding throughout the past winter has convinced many in the UK that we are undergoing significant climate change.
    3., The ice core data is from a single location. It does not represent the global picture.
    4. The Non tree ring reconstruction only extends up to 1900. The link also fails to report the source of the reconstruction. I suspect it’s BS.
    5. But, possibly the worse problem with your evidence is that it is contradictory. The Greenland ice core data shows a Roman Warm Period. The Non T-R reconstruction shows the Roman period to be cold which again leads me to conclude that the reconstruction is BS.

    I am sceptical about both the LIA and MWP as truly global events. There are many studies from around the world but the timing of the cooling/warming events do not match up.

  190. >rogerknights says:
    >August 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    >[If a writer is submitting from Facebook or similar limited screens and platforms, a “carriage
    >return” (paragraph) is a “submit & send right now” signal.

    On most browsers where a carriage return is “submit & send”, shift-CR will produce a CR in the text. Two shift-CR’s will produce a blank line.

  191. richardscourtney says:
    August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am

    As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.

    What do you mean by “people like me”? What reference am I supposed to provide? If you think I have reviled you for some reason on a web blog provide me with a link or a quote, at least, and I’ll try to respond to it.

    The only point I recall making about the surface temperature trend is that (a) there is No significant cooling trend and (b) the error bars include the previous pre-2000 trend and I know how you like to see error bars, Richard. In fact, I’m a bit surprised you haven’t challenged Christopher Monckton on this issue.

    If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.

  192. “John Finn says:

    August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am

    If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.”

    Exactly. its not happening!

  193. mellyrn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    Mellyrn, some basics. When you say that “400 CO2 molecules in every million atmospheric molecules literally intercept 400 of every million IR photons” this would be true if the atmosphere was only one molecule thick. But, as you know, the atmosphere is many kilometres deep and that contains a lot of layers one molecule thick. Consequently, all IR (at 15 microns) is absorbed by CO2 in a very short distance (95% within one metre).

    As for incoming solar radiation, at 15 microns it is negligible whereas this wavelength is close to the peak of the outgoing Earth radiation [ Incoming radiation at 15 microns is less than one millionth the intensity of the outgoing radiation]. The CO2 blanket thus acts as a filter, letting solar radiation in but stopping the Earth’s radiation getting back out. The warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which act in this way is quite considerable, making the surface of the Earth about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be.

    It is sad that so many people commenting here are still unaware of the basic facts. Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that the greenhouse effect is not real.. The trouble with continually repeating this sort of nonsense is that other people form the conclusion that all sceptics are ill-informed or stupid.

  194. Ron House says, August 3, 2014 at 12:34 am:

    “At different frequencies, this radiating surface will be at different altitudes.”

    Meaning, for Earth there is no radiating surface. There is a continuum of radiating layers all the way from the surface up to the ToA. The average final, total flux from the Earth system to space is about 239 W/m^2. This is accumulated from all of these layers. They all contribute some tiny amount. Yes, mathematically you can calculate a mean temperature from the evened-out total flux, get 255K and pretend that this correlate to one real ‘radiating surface’ at this particular temperature, and then from there draw the temperature profile down to the real surface at 288K and pretend that the difference makes up the rGHE (288-255=) 33K. In the real world, such a radiating surface at 255K doesn’t exist.

    Some incremental layers contribute more than others to that final, accumulated flux (simply balancing the average incoming from the Sun), some considerably more. One such layer is the solid/liquid surface itself. A second region lies high in the troposphere. Here H2O is the radiator. In fact, throughout the tropospheric column, H2O is the prime, almost exclusive radiator to space.

    It is quite evident here how the Sun first heats the surface, then convective/evaporative processes responding brings the energy up into the troposphere, distributing it along the lapse rate, all the way to the tropopause (convection top), for it to be radiated back to space from these different layers.

    “Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”

    Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.

    This is how we observe the real world works (as opposed to the purely theoretical bubble world of climate ‘science’).

  195. MikeB says:
    August 3, 2014 at 4:22 am

    mellyrn says:
    August 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    As for incoming solar radiation, at 15 microns it is negligible whereas this wavelength is close to the peak of the outgoing Earth radiation [ Incoming radiation at 15 microns is less than one millionth the intensity of the outgoing radiation]. The CO2 blanket thus acts as a filter, letting solar radiation in but stopping the Earth’s radiation getting back out. The warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which act in this way is quite considerable, making the surface of the Earth about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be.

    Right, except ISTR the warming estimate is 18 C°. However, don’t get so excited about a single wavelength as there’s a lot more IR being radiated at other wavelengths. Also, some of that 18 C° means Earth isn’t a snowball, and water vapor is a stronger GHG. If you look at that Ceres image I posted, you may note that:

    1) Radiation from cloud tops is low.
    This means that the areas where radiation is reaching space (call it effective radiation) is mainly from lower levels.

    2) Most of the ground features are obscured.
    This may mean that a lot of effective radiation is coming from the lower atmosphere, or it may mean that the emissivity of much of the planet is equal and it’s glowing with equal brightness. Or both – low level clouds radiate well.

    3) Hot dry ground features (hot deserts) do stand out.
    CO2 is pretty well dispersed, water vapor is not. This helps show both that while the atmosphere is saturated at some wavelengths, it most definitely is not at others, especially when water vapor isn’t obscuring things.

    It is sad that so many people commenting here are still unaware of the basic facts. Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that the greenhouse effect is not real.. The trouble with continually repeating this sort of nonsense is that other people form the conclusion that all sceptics are ill-informed or stupid.

    Well, I’ll agree with some of that. One pet peeve I have is that people get distracted by the long wave spectrum that is absorbed by CO2 and lose sight of those parts absorbed by water vapor and worse, forget about the portions of the spectrum that are wide open. Every morning I go outside after a clear windless night, I’m reminded how much energy the Earth’s surface radiates into space. It is sad that so many people don’t seem to incorporate that basic fact into their understanding of of Earth’s radiation budget.

  196. John Finn:

    Thankyou for your reply to me at August 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm.

    OK. So you did not dispute the definition of global warming until global warming stopped. But you now say

    The warming may not be as great as predicted (or projected) but it is still happening. To keep arguing that it isn’t is inviting trouble further down the line. Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer but it shouldn’t be extreme or catastrophic and may even be beneficial.

    NO! Failing to adhere to the truth is “inviting trouble further down the line”.

    Global warming has stopped.
    Nobody knows if the plateau of global temperature will end with warming or cooling.

    Your warmunist faith that “Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer” is misplaced when “increasing CO2″ has not made the world warmer this century.

    Richard

  197. John Finn:

    First,please allow me to apologise for failing to see your post at August 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm. Having now seen it I have replied to it with my post at August 3, 2014 at 6:34 am.

    However, my missing your post resulted in my writing my post at August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am so you have provided your reply at August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am.

    Your reply concludes saying

    If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.

    I am not “arguing” anything. I am stating facts.

    As I said in my post at August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Please consider {your} daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.

    Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase energy.

    Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
    That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.

    All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.

    If you want to redefine global warming to include “heat accumulation in the ocean” then you need to get NASA, CRU , IPCC and many others to agree with John Finn that now global warming has stopped they have been assessing the wrong thing. Good luck with that.

    Richard

  198. milodonharlani says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:23 pm
    H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    Earth 0.367 geometric
0.306 Bond

    Thanks. How is albedo determined; is it calculated or measured? Do we know how much albedo has changed, if at all, over the past 35 years?

  199. MikeB, is all the CO2 in a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere, then?

    Sure, 15 microns is a tiny portion of incoming IR, but it remains that if there is ANY coming in, then there is some that can be blocked from getting here (and, however tiny, with the Sun being so much bigger than the Earth, “a tiny fraction” is still going to be a goodly amount). That one-molecule-thick layer of CO2 at the top of the atmosphere will effectively “shade” the planetside from that solar contribution, just as the CO2 at the bottom “blankets” the surface. And if any incoming 15u photons get past the upper CO2, they could still be “turned around” by the lower ones, and if any outbound 15u photons get past the lower CO2, they could still be “turned around” by the upper ones.

    For CO2 to cause warming, it has to act like a check valve, allowing the relevant photons to pass in one direction (downward, planetside) but not the other. Show me how CO2 can possibly have a preference for “down” over “up”.

  200. Kristian says:
    August 3, 2014 at 4:33 am
    Some incremental layers contribute more than others to that final, accumulated flux (simply balancing the average incoming from the Sun), some considerably more. One such layer is the solid/liquid surface itself. A second region lies high in the troposphere. Here H2O is the radiator. In fact, throughout the tropospheric column, H2O is the prime, almost exclusive radiator to space.

    http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg

    It’s bad practice to link to a graph without its legend since you can be misled as to what is being plotted.

    It is quite evident here how the Sun first heats the surface, then convective/evaporative processes responding brings the energy up into the troposphere, distributing it along the lapse rate, all the way to the tropopause (convection top), for it to be radiated back to space from these different layers.

    “Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”

    Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.

    Here’s how Clough and Iacono describe it in the paper from which that figure was taken:

    “The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

  201. John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am
    richardscourtney says:
    August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am

    “As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.”

    What do you mean by “people like me”? What reference am I supposed to provide? If you think I have reviled you for some reason on a web blog provide me with a link or a quote, at least, and I’ll try to respond to it.

    I wouldn’t bother John, courtney exhibits narcisstic behavior, any criticism of his posts constitutes ‘stalking’ or ‘reviling’ him. You’ll just get into what Anthony described as a ‘food fight’ , it’s not worth the trouble.

  202. Ric, ISTR is what?
    If you mean that the Earth is only 18 degree warmer because of greenhouse gases then you probably got confused with minus 18 (being the temperature of the surface without a greenhouse effect). CO2 of course affects a much wider band than just 15 microns itself. The fact that some radiation escapes through the atmospheric window does not change the fact that some is ‘blocked’.

    Some people (not me) do argue that without CO2 the temperature would be lower (true) and so water vapour concentration would be lower and so the world would cool and water vapour would be even lower and so on. They argue that CO2 is the control knob that ultimately controls temperature and that water vapour is just a ‘feedback’. They may be right? But that was not the point I was addressing.

    mellyrn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 7:19 am

    MikeB, is all the CO2 in a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere, then?

    No, Mellyrn. No, CO2 is an evenly mixed gas in the atmosphere. The fact that the Earth is bigger than the Sun has also been taken into account when I said that its input at 15 microns is only one millionth of the outgoing radiation at that wavelength. Just assume that ALL the Sun’s radiation at 15 micron is prevented from reaching the surface. It makes no difference because bulk of the solar radiation is at shorter wavelength and passes through the atmosphere unhindered.

    Since it appears you managed to learn to read how about trying to understand what is written.

  203. MikeB says:
    August 3, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Ric, ISTR is what?

    Sorry, should have spelled it out. – I Seem To Recall.

    If you mean that the Earth is only 18 degree warmer because of greenhouse gases then you probably got confused with minus 18 (being the temperature of the surface without a greenhouse effect).

    That could well be what I was thinking of, I don’t have time today to check – it’s the sort of question that would take me off on too many tangents….

  204. Ron House says:
    August 3, 2014 at 12:08 am

    Before multicellular life, there were times when the ocean temperature reached 40C. I think you might reconsider your “angels…” argument if that happened today, regardless of whether there is a single, unique measure of the planetary temperature.

    Why would I reconsider? Like the atmosphere, there is no single ocean temperature. Or are you saying that the oceans were a uniform 40C the world over? If so, any evidence of that?

  205. Troll who posts as Phil.:

    I see you continue your stalking of me with your post in this thread at August 3, 2014 at 7:42 am.

    As I said to you in the other thread earlier today, your stalking and trolling is disruptive. Please return to your playpen.

    Richard

  206. Seems the El nono hasn’t panned out the way warmunists had hoped, so they have to resort to the absurd notion that the “heat is hiding” in the oceans, or some such nonsense.
    Yeah, good luck with that.

  207. Jim Clarke says:
    August 2, 2014 at 9:54 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?”
    Near 100%! Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, all else being equal, should produce some warming, just nowhere near what the IPCC says it should. Nonetheless, if the CO2 content increases and there is no warming, something must be offsetting that warming.

    William: In response to Clarke and Shearer.

    The assertion that unexplained natural processes suddenly offset the AGW warming (Why is there suddenly the start of cooling 17 years 10 months ago? What changed 17 years 10 months ago to physically cause the cooling to start to offset the CO2 warming?) and that the fact that the weird mysterious cooling mechanism must exactly cancel out the CO2 forcing (the CO2 forcing if it were responsible for the majority of the warming in the last 50 years, would require a massive natural cooling process(es) to exactly cancel out the CO2 forcing which requires the chaotic mystery natural cooling mechanism to have increased in magnitude with time to cancel out the CO2 forcing, as the CO2 forcing if the warmist theory were correct is increasing with time ) is absurd. (i.e. There is no physical explanation/change to start the cooling 17 years 10 months ago and no physical change/mechanism to cause the cooling to increase with time over the 17 year 10 month period to exactly cancel out the CO2 forcing.)

    There are multiple observations (paleo record, periods of time when there is no correlation of planetary temperature with atmospheric CO2 level for thousands and millions of years, latitudinal warming paradox(the warming in the last 50 years is at high latitudes with almost no warming in the tropics which does not match the pattern of warming if AGW was the cause – if AGW was the cause the majority of the warming should have occur in tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space before the increase in atmospheric CO2 and where is ample water to provide amplification), the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot at 8km above the earth’s surface which is a fundamental prediction of the CO2 theory and which is required to cause the CO2 warming, and so on) that indicate there is a major fundamental error (missing variable that is not modeled that explains what is observed, that causes greenhouse gas warming to saturate at higher concentrations of gas, the explanation is not simply low sensitivity forcing changes) in the basic AGW theory/modeling of the atmosphere. The observations in the last 50 years and the last 100 million years supports the assertion that (1) the planet strongly resists forcing changes and (2) something is inhibiting AGW forcing in the higher altitudes of the atmosphere, and that there is a very powerful forcing mechanism that causes the planet to warm and cool (explanation for the glacial/interglacial cycle in the last 1.8 million years and the ice epoches).

    A period of 17 years, 10 months when there is no warming supports the assertion that (3) the majority of the warming (roughly 90%) in the last 150 years and 50 years was due to some other mechanism than the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

    If assertion 3 is correct, the 17 years, 10 month period when there is no warming is explained by the mechanism that caused the warming in the last 150 years saturating.

    Comment:
    The warmists appeal to the fact that there are other periods when there is a plateau with no warming or no additional cooling as if the fact that there were other periods when what we are observing currently has happened before somehow explains away the observations that cannot be explained by their theory. The explanation for the past plateaus and the current plateau is the same.

    The majority of the warming in the last 50 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover which explains why the warming was primarily at high latitudes. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The same high latitude warming has occurred before. In every case the periods of high latitude warming that correlate with periods of high solar magnetic cycle activity were followed by cooling when the sun entered a Maunder like minimum.

    The sun is in the process of entering a very, very, deep solar magnetic cycle minimum. The plateau of no warming is almost over. The planet is now starting to cool (record sea ice in the Antarctic, the start of increase in sea ice in the Arctic, and the start of inhibiting of El Nino events.) The observed sudden changes in climate require something to change to physically cause what is observed. The change in the sun is the explanation for the sudden changes in climate.

  208. Christopher Monckton,

    Your regular monthly updates on the temperature dataset trends are getting better in communicating the key issues. Thank you. I, for one, appreciate the more even toned and measured delivery of this most recent post of yours compared to the previous ones.

    As I step back and digest the state of disarray of the IPCC’s theory of CAGW, I am considering what kind of justifications the IPCC Bureau will be forced to use to justify creating an AR6.

    If I was an intellectual leader within the IPCC right now, I would consider the idea that it might be best to have AR5 be the last full report because an AR6 is likely to be a climb down from alarmism of AR6. Such a likely climb down from the level of alarmism in AR5 does not serve the ideology of the IPCC Bureau, so why do an AR6 at all? Perhaps we will see a shift in IPCC Bureau strategy to do topical short reports at need to target key alarming promotion on no fixed schedule instead of a full blown AR on the normal time cycle of past ARs.

    John

  209. Phil. says, August 3, 2014 at 7:34 am:

    “Here’s how Clough and Iacono describe it in the paper from which that figure was taken:

    “The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

    I don’t care about what the authors claim, Phil. They have no observational backing whatsoever for their claim. It’s just a claim, dutifully and reflexively bowing to the Great God of the CO2 scare. I care only about what their results show. Their claim simply underscores how they don’t get the dynamics of the troposphere. What actually moves the heat inside the troposphere: Convection, not radiation.

    In the following, I quote from Chiefio putting the diagram in question into its proper context of what’s really going on in the atmosphere, not what you and Clough/Iacono seem to think (assume) is going on:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/

    “It [the Clough/Iacono paper] goes on at some great length about how Green House Gases increase the radiative cooling of the Stratosphere. They are throughly convinced that stratospheric cooling is the Evil Twin of tropospheric warming, showing that GHGs are critical to both (so by implication, cooling in the stratosphere endorses warming troposphere). Completely missing the point that the troposphere is dominated by water and convection, so more heat in just means faster transport up. Yet the graph is useful and the discussion is interesting.

    The caption [of the figure in question: http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg ] reads:

    3. Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, cabon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colours from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. Figure from: Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995; adapted from the SPARC Website. Please click to enlarge! (60 K)

    First, look at that left hand lower edge. See that big red spot? That’s water, dumping heat like crazy at the top of the troposphere. At a height that is determined NOT by that nice flat dashed line of tropopause, but directly by the amount of heat that needs to be dumped! Once again we have a ‘static scored’ model in a dynamic real world. More heat at the surface means more and stronger convection, more and stronger evaporation, and a bigger red spot higher up that graph! Remember that tropical storm “overshoot”? Not seeing it on this graph, are we?… Surges of heat would lead to surges of water across that dotted tropopause line and into the lower stratosphere. That is what we know actually happens.

    Now look over at that large orange / yellow / green “cats eye” in the stratosphere that is the CO2 signature. Look directly below it. See that basically empty band of light blue? That is a direct reading on CO2, and it shows that the CO2 is just not doing anything that matters in the troposphere.

    From that point, as you move to the right below the tropopause, you find water once again radiating at height, but not as much, in an even larger wavenumber (shorter wavelength). The overall message of this graph is just that in the troposphere, water is everything and CO2 is nothing. We can also add to this graph that convection and evaporation / condensation are major processes in the troposphere and this radiative model isn’t really all that important for surface cooling at all.

    In the stratosphere we see some cooling from water vapor, so, little as there is up there, it still does something. However, THE largest blobs of cooling color come from CO2 and ozone. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes more radiative heat loss from just those parts of the atmosphere that do radiative heat loss, and does nearly nothing in that part of the atmosphere dominated by convection and evaporation / precipitation. Warming of the surface of the earth increases convection, evaporation, and water transport, and deposits that water and heat higher in the sky; so will dump more heat into the stratosphere (and perhaps more water vapor too … enhancing that water radiative part).

    In short, the system is dynamic and has a convection driven lower layer, with a radiative driven upper layer. More CO2 means more radiative heat loss, not less.”

  210. John Whitman, my thoughts on the combined topics of the IPCC’s AR5 model envelope and the Central England Temperature (CET) record are contained in a post I made on Lucia’s Blackboard in October, 2013. These thoughts are reproduced below:

    ==================================

    Beta Blocker (Comment #120204 – Lucia’s Blackboard)
    October 15th, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    Coming from the “one picture is worth a million words” department, I thought it might be a useful exercise in the visual interpretation of graphical information to combine IPCC/AR5 Figure 1.4 with the Hadley Center’s graph of Central England Temperature (CET), 1772-2013, placing both graphics onto one common page.

    This exercise is yet another phase in my ongoing efforts to expand my “CET is Anything and Everything” climate science paradigm into uncharted visual communication territory.

    A major characteristic of the CET-is-Anything-and-Everything paradigm is the assumption that pre-2007 rates of temperature change in the CET historical record can be used as rough predictive indicators for post-2007 GMST rates of change — at least to the extent of stating that similar rates of change have been experienced within the past 240 years which cover similar (or longer) timeframes as does the AR5 2013-2035 predictive timeframe of twenty-five to thirty years.

    Here it is: AR5 Figure 1.4 and CET 1772-2013

    The illustration has two major graphical elements:

    -> The first major graphical element, located in the upper-left quarter section of the illustration, displays an adaptation of IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4 which highlights the boundaries of the “AR5 Expanded Modeling Envelope”; i.e. that section of the original Figure 1.4 which illustrates the observation validation zone between the year 2001 and the year 2035 of past IPCC model runs. Overlain on the Figure 1.4 adaptation is a series of seven temperature rate-of-change trend lines spaced in 0.1 degree increments, each of which begins in the year 2007, and each of which also has a historical precedent in the Central England Temperature record.

    -> The second major graphical element, which is shaded in light gray and which covers approximately three-quarters of the illustration, documents the method which was used to visually fit the approximate slopes of the seven CET temperature trends occurring between 1772 and 1975 which are being used as the historical CET precedents. A third graphic illustrating Global Mean Temperature between 1850 and 2008 is also included for visual reference and comparison. The original source graphics for CET and for GMT are from the Hadley Center.

    Let’s remark here that the Central England Temperature record is the only instrumental record we have that goes back as far as it does; and that its recent temperature trends are approximately reflective of recent global temperature trends.

    Concerning the derivation of my own graphical adaptions of the IPCC and Hadley Center source graphics, the process by which the slopes of historical CET trend lines were determined is readily evident from direct examination of the illustration, without any further explanation other than to clarify that all fitting of trend slopes was done by visually placing each linearized trend line onto the HadCET plot wherever it was appropriate in the CET record for the particular decadal rate of change being fitted: -0.1, -0.03, +.03, +0.1, +0.2, +0.3, or +0.4

    Several points become immediately evident from a casual look at this one-page graphical illustration:

    (1) GMST could fall at a rate of -0.03 C per decade between 2007 and 2021 and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.

    (2) GMST could stay flat between 2007 and 2028 — i.e., have a trend of 0 C per decade for a period of 21 years — and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.

    (3) A small upward trend of +0.03 C per decade is the approximate rate of change in CET for the period of 1772 through 2007, a period of 235 years. GMST could rise with that same small upward trend of +0.03 C per decade for another 28 years beyond 2007 and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.

    (4) For the timeframe covering the period between 2007 and 2035, GMST could experience a rising temperature trend of anywhere from +0.03 per decade on up to +0.4 C per decade, while still remaining within the scope of past historical precedents documented in the Central England Temperature record for similar periods of time.

    (5) Rates of CET temperature change which covered time periods of at least twenty-five years, and which ranged from a low of -0.1 C per decade on up to a high of +0.4 C per decade, occurred at pre-industrial levels of CO2.

    What does it all mean?

    It means we have seen it all before, and we will probably see it all again; i.e., there is nothing new under the sun.

    (End of October 2013 Comment)
    ==================================

    Let’s go beyond this commentary from October, 2013 and work with an assumption that CET’s historical trends, up or down, are 2 times whatever GMT historical trends were for the approximate time periods covered.

    This kind assumption would be justified by the many claims now being made that such-and-such location on earth is warming at twice the rate of the world average.

    If we assume for purposes of argument that this is true of Central England Temperature, let’s simply cut all CET trends to half of what is indicated by the Hadley Center plots.

    If the assumption that CET ~= 2 x GMT for all historical periods is now operative, does that additional assumption in any way invalidate my basic assertion that “We have seen it all before, and we will probably see it all again; i.e., there is nothing new under the sun.”

    Why or why not?

  211. Since it appears you managed to learn to read how about trying to understand what is written

    MikeB, I am sorry to be so stupid. Please help me understand what you have written. I forgive you for saying that the Earth is bigger than the Sun:

    The fact that the Earth is bigger than the Sun has also been….

    I assume that was a typo. However, I am not sure I understand,

    its input at 15 microns is only one millionth of the outgoing radiation at that wavelength.

    As written, “its” appears to refer to the Earth, but if I autocorrect your typo, “its” refers to the Sun; so you’re claiming that incoming (to Earth) 15u IR is one-millionth of the 15u headed back out from Earth? Do I have that right?

    If yes, citation, please?

    If yes, I can see how this would have a “check valve” effect. I can also see (as I said earlier) how CO2 could cause warming at night, because there is no incoming solar at all — let alone one-millionth part — to the night side of the planet.

    It remains, though, that 460 million years ago, CO2 stood at 4400 ppm, eleven times higher than today’s, and Earth did not develop a “runaway greenhouse effect” and burn up. In fact, 460 mya, we were not only not burning up, we were in a deep ice age. Despite all that CO2.

    It remains that for 80% of Earth’s existence, the planet has been too warm for permanent, year-round ice even at the poles, so even if we warm back up to completely melt the polar ice caps, this will not be a “disaster” but simply Earth returning. to. normal..

    It remains that we are currently in an ice age, and if all humanity and all its emissions vanished off the planet today, Earth would still, sooner or later (my money is on AT LEAST 30 million years later), return to NORMAL — i.e., warm back up.

    It remains that you can’t know what effect CO2 is having on Venus (if any) until you take the pressure/temperature gradient into account. To pretend pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere doesn’t matter to temperature is to tell aeronautics engineers and pilots and others who need to understand what they’re flying through that they are ignorant of atmospheres. (That was H Grouse who didn’t/couldn’t get that; I do not know what you think on this score.)

    In short, whatever theoretical basis there is for CO2-driven warming, the real world (current plateau; the Andean-Saharan Ice Age in 4400ppm CO2; Venus at 49km altitude) doesn’t back it up.

    My search for a “check valve” effect (or the lack of one) was an attempt to reconcile CO2’s clear and obvious IR-absorption properties with the observed zero correlation with real-world warming.

    When observation conflicts with theory, it ain’t theory we keep. I do understand that.

  212. John Finn (August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am) “If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.”

    It would be a mistake to attribute the long term heating of the oceans to CO2 warming. CO2 warming has been slight and mainly over land and high latitudes Heat accumulation in the ocean is primarily a natural cyclical phenomenon modulated by clouds and solar variability. We have had a long stretch of historically high solar activity followed by less cloud cover during La Nina. Cloud cover decreased in a long term trend since the 80’s: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg and has stayed low. So it’s no surprise that the oceans are heating in the long term.

    Once the secular trends end and the oceans start to cool again the chicken littles will undoubtedly point to some new indicator of warming even if they have to completely fabricate the data. Their choice will probably be sea level since current sea level rise exceeds the estimate from expansion due to warming. They will simply claim that earth’s warming should only be measured by ocean expansion and they will suitably bump up estimate for post-glacial rebound and tell us to pay no attention to the actual rise in sea levels but will you look at that extreme adjusted rise! Unprecedented.

  213. To try and get this discussion a little more on topic, I’ve always felt requiring a negative trend to delimit “the pause” was questionable. In fact, a bit too conservative. When are alarmists ever conservative? A slightly better method would be to use the 95% falsification criteria normally used in science. Since the warming is supposed to be around .2C/decade then anything less than a.01C/decade trend matches the 95% criteria.

    The trend at 18 years is .003/C decade or less than the 95% criteria.
    The trend at 18 years and 1 month is .006/C decade. still less than the 95% criteria
    The trend at 18 years and 2 months is .009/C decade. still less than the 95% criteria
    The trend at 18 years and 3 month is .013/C decade. which is now over the 95% criteria.

    Hence, I would think claiming “the pause” is at 18 years and 2 months is the most scientifically accurate description.

  214. Jimbo says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    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.

    The new divergence problem. If it cools then it is all over. Or they will claim global cooling is caused by global warming.
    =====================================================================
    They already are. All climatic events are now the result of global warming. Oh, and by the way, war is peace. Heads they win, tails we lose. The world turned upside down.

  215. A number of diversionary points have been attempted by certain commenters. The main point should not get lost. The models were wrong. Not one of the models predicted, as its central estimate, that there would be no global warming for close to 18 years. It becomes clearer by the month that catastrophic global warming is unlikely. And it is self-evident, after so long a period without any warming, that there is no hurry to act. Best to wait and see.

    Those who deny the scientific evidence that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. There is a danger that they persist in trying to pollute these threads for the sake of discrediting skeptics as a whole. I hope the moderators will intervene to follow site policy in keeping them out, so that a rational discussion can be maintained.

  216. Monckton of Brenchley says:August 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm says: “…Mr Arrak is incorrect to state that there was no 0.1 C warming from 1979-1996 in the satellite record. Taking the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, it is indeed present….”

    With all due respect to you and your valuable work, Moncton of Brenchley, you are wrong and don’t know how to measure the true slope of global temperature in the presence of ENSO. What you need to do to get up to speed on this is to read pages 9 to 15 in my book and study Figure 15 and its caption on page 32. I would have enclosed a properly marked out temperature graph with this but I have no idea where to send it. If you will be kind enough and designate an address I shall be more than happy to illuminate you. Seeing is believing as they say. Perhaps it will make you realize that shooting off your mouth without having done your homework is not too smart when dealing with science.

  217. Beta Blocker: John Whitman, my thoughts on the combined topics of the IPCC’s AR5 model envelope and the Central England Temperature (CET) record are contained in a post I made on Lucia’s Blackboard in October, 2013. These thoughts are reproduced below:

    That is a good post. Thank you.

  218. Arno Arrak: What you need to do to get up to speed on this is to read pages 9 to 15 in my book and study Figure 15 and its caption on page 32.

    What is your book. I searched at Amazon.com and did not find one that seemed relevant.

  219. John Finn says:

    1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.

    That conclusion results from an assumption based on one data point. The CET is the only record we have, so it is used widely. But it is very regional. You cannot point to the CET and say that represents the planet. There is a mountain of evidence showing that the LIA was global.

    2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless.

    Wrong. Accounts of ice faires on the Thames, and contemporary paintings of Washington crossing a Delaware river that was congested with ice floes are not “meaningless”. They show a much colder climate than today’s.

    3. The ice core data is from a single location. It does not represent the global picture.

    Wrong again. The ice core evidence comes from various locations in both hemisphheres, including Greenland, the Antarctic, and the Arctic. They all show warming and cooling in lockstep, therefore, they are an excellent proxy for global temperature change. They also all show the LIA, and the MWP.

    4. The Non tree ring reconstruction only extends up to 1900.

    So what? That does not negate the LIA, which occurred well before that.

    5. But, possibly the worse problem with your evidence is that it is contradictory. The Greenland ice core data shows a Roman Warm Period.

    Again, let me remind you that the ice core data shows concurrent warming and cooling in all the boreholes. That validates the global temperature changes shown, and those changes clearly show a LIA and a MWP.

    I am sceptical about both the LIA and MWP as truly global events.

    Your mind is closed, John, that’s all. Confirmation bias rules your thinking. You reject all evidence that contradicts your belief, while cherry-picking the rest. That’s not science; that is religion.

  220. Whenever hear folks claiming that the heat from AGW is hiding in the oceans I ask one simple question. Show me one model that shows ocean warming while both the ocean surface and atmosphere are not warming. So far, no responses.

    The fact is there is no mechanism associated with AGW to warm the deep oceans without first warming the higher levels. The only logical mechanism for changes in the deep oceans is mixing of the various layers. That is, changes in ocean currents. This is not adding heat, but simply moving it around.

  221. Mr Arrak is incorrect. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the monthly mean global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for January 1979-December 1996 is 0.1 K (UAH); 0.1 K (RSS); and 0.1 K (mean of the two datasets). It is of course possible to tamper with the data in various ways, but taking the published data and calculating a straightforward trend is the simplest and safest course, and it shows a warming that is, however, below the 0.15 K measurement, coverage and bias uncertainty threshold. We can agree, therefore, that the warming shown on these datasets is not particularly significant. On the mean of the three terrestrial datasets, the warming over the same period is shown as 0.2 K.

  222. Can someone tell me…at the current rate of decline, what year will it be when the IPCC prediction for the temperature change to 2100 goes negative? Will that happen in 2099 or earlier?

  223. Anthony,
    I have been debating a media personality for many months on the subject of CAGW and GMO. I have found one very excellent study by very qualified scientists from many prestigious Universities in multiple disciplines. It is well written and complete – my only complaint is still they are allowed to withhold data and methods?

    Why are there no Climate change studies of this quality? I would like to read one?

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=R1

  224. The problem with most data sets is that they not properly balanced NH/SH.
    Here are the results of a properly balanced sample of weather stations:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    I have three different data sets, namely one for the speed of maxima, one for means and one for minima. All three data sets show deceleration of warming, to the point where we are now actually globally cooling [from 2000], with high correlation. The maths is as simple as what you learned in high school, when somebody throws a ball. You get a curve when you set the speed of the ball in m/s out against time. That is when you see acceleration and deceleration in the curve.
    In the case of my last data set, for minimum temperatures, which is supposed to show chaos, due to alleged man made warming, I found the following final results:
    over the past 40 years, from 1974 until 2014 the speed of warming was 0.004 K/annum
    over the past 34 years, from 1980 until 2014 the speed of warming was 0.007 K/annum
    over the past 24 years, from 1990 until 2014 the speed of warming was 0.004 K/annum
    over the past 14 years, from 2000 until 2014 the speed of warming was -0.009 K/annum
    Setting the speed of warming in K/annum out against time, you find the deceleration in K/annum2
    Admittedly, I only have 4 points to find the deceleration. But it is enough. I always used 4 points in photometry, AAS, etc. As long as the curve/relationship is perfectly defined within the range.
    See graph at the bottom of the last table

    The curve I found shows Rsquared = 1. That means that the warming over time is perfectly defined by the reported quadratic function.
    At any point in the past 40 years I can tell you exactly what the speed of warming was [as far as minima is concerned]
    Somebody else who duplicates my results, should find the same function or something very close. Similar to throwing the dice and finding that the average of all throws is 3.5.
    In my case, I just happened to find the right final number. God, or nature, if you please, has thrown us a ball. Man made warming (AGW) is, or must be, exactly 0.000K/annum. Everything is going down so naturally. There simply is no room for any AGW in the equation.
    Unless somebody here has any ideas how we could put it in, so that it comes out 100% parabolic?

  225. Do you all realize the RSS relies on a climate model?

    Roy Spencer (2011):
    ”Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

  226. dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 10:39 am
    John Finn says:
    2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless.

    Wrong. Accounts of ice faires on the Thames, and contemporary paintings of Washington crossing a Delaware river that was congested with ice floes are not “meaningless”. They show a much colder climate than today’s.

    Really, here’s a youtube video of ice floes on the Delaware for you.

    A newspaper report from 1989:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19891230&id=57orAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RaMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3889,5569684

    There are numerous similar events every few years.
    As an illustration of the value of ‘anecdotal’ accounts, check out the following:

    http://www.humanities360.com/index.php/leutzes-painting-washington-crossing-the-delaware-historical-inaccuracies-14570/

    Note that it was far from contemporary.

  227. Evidence of this can be found in the thermal expansion component of sea level rise
    ==========
    show me a single marine chart that has a datum correction for sea level rise. they all have a datum correction for GPS/WGS84. Why if sea level rise is real, why did the marine charts not correct for this, given the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in marine commerce at stake?

    most of these charts were originally surveyed well over 100 years ago, during the age of sail, so if sea level rise is occurring they would need to be corrected. but they haven’t been. why?

    the reason is simple. sea level rise is a political statement. in the real world, on the scale of human lifetimes, it is too small to be noticed. it is less than the error in the measurements.

  228. The earliest month in the RSS data with a p-value over 0.1 is December, 1994, 19 years and 8 months. Using exactly 26 years, I get a p-value of 0.00000000000000022

  229. Monckton of Brenchley August 23, 2014 at 10:15 am says: “…Those who deny the scientific evidence that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. There is a danger that they persist in trying to pollute these threads for the sake of discrediting skeptics as a whole….” You seem angry. Why?

    Lets work it out. I am a skeptic too and would like to stay on talking terms. First, tell me what do you consider scientific evidence? To me the fact that you can measure the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the laboratory is not proof that greenhouse warming exists. Arrhenius did this and then hypothesized that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise global temperature by four or five degrees Celsius. Present day measurements put the Arrhenius warming at about 1.1 degrees Celsius. James Hansen thought he had detected the greenhouse effect and said so to the United Statwes Senate in 1988. What was his proof? He showed that there had been a hundred year warming that culminated in the highest known recorded temperature in 1988. According to him, there was only a one percent chance that this could happen by chance. But to him, this eliminated chance and the only explanation had to be that the greenhouse effect did it. I checked his warming curve and found that it included a thirty year segment between 1910 and 1940 that definitely was not greenhouse warming. And you cannot use non-greenhouse warming to prove the existence of greenhouse warming. This may actually be moot if you consider that warming before 1950 should not be used anyway because the noise level in the older period is as high or higher than the signal itself. Nevertheless, IPCC which had been in the planning stages was established partly because of this bogus claim and has been pushing for the idea of anthropogenic global warming ever since. They have gotten away with this for the last 26 years because there was no way to check it. But fortunately global warming stopped. There is no warming today, and definitely no greenhouse warming that Arrhenius greenhouse theory tells us about. In fact, there has been no warming of any kind for the last 17 (or 14?) years. What is more, carbon dioxide has been on the increase all these years and this has caused no warming whatsoever. The Arrhenius greenhouse theory, on the other hand, has been predicting warming for the last 17 years and getting nothing. If your theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 17 years that theory belongs in the waste basket of history, right next to phlogiston, another failed theory of heat. There is, of course, another greenhouse theory, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT), that can explain explicitly what this warning pause entails. It has been out since 2007 but its predictions were not to the liking of the global warming cabal and they have successfully suppressed any mention of it. It turns out that the Miskolczi theory predicts exactly what we see: there is no warming now yet carbon dioxide keeps increasing. I want you to understand that it does not violate any radiation laws of physics and it does not stop the absorption of radiation by carbon dioxide. The Miskolczi theory can handle a situation where several greenhouse gases are simultaneously absorbing in the IR, something that Arrhenius cannot do. According to Miskolczi, carbon dioxide and water vapor, the two major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, establish a joint optimum absorption window in the IR which they control. The optical thickness of this joint absorption window is 1.87, calculated by Miskiolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to decrease, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but this will not create that “greenhouse warming” Arrhenius expects because the reduction of water vapor cancels out its warming capacity. This is why we have the warming pause today. It should of course be verified by another independent observation. Miskolczi did that in 2011 when he used a NOAA database of radiosonde observations to study the absorption of IR by the atmosphere over time. It turned out that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. Constant absorption means no warming and we have an exact parallel to what is happening today. As to the uniqueness or otherwise of this pause, record shows that in the eighties and nineties there was another 18 year period of no warming. We do not see that because major ground-based temperature sources have chosen to hide this by showing a 0.1 degree temperature rise where none exists according to satellite values. In view of all this, it is clear that there can be no such thing as greenhouse warming. This is not denial of absorption, it is denial that absorption can cause warming because of the effect of water vapor influence discussed. And this makes anthropogenic greenhouse warming nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, created by climate scientists anxious to prove the existence of greenhouse warming.

  230. John Flynn says

    John if the oceans are warming but the atmosphere isn’t, what is the cause?
    The oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere, there is no reasonable mechanism to suggest the oceans are warming because of increase in temperature of the atmosphere. If the oceans are warming (which is very debatable) it is because of geothermal warming or because of solar [activity].

    If the atmosphere is [warming] it will because the oceans warm not the other way around. If the oceans continue acidifying it will be because they are warming and this would would show up in the atmosphere as a linear increase in co2. Which we have had. It would show up in linear increase in temperatures in the atmosphere. Which we had. Both of these are an effect of the oceans warming not the other way around.

    The evidence is what ever warming there was in the oceans has ceased, not increased because of supposed absorption of atmospheric heat. This why we have a pause in atmospheric warming and will have cooling moving [forward].

  231. dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 10:39 am

    John Finn says:

    1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.
    ——————————-

    What a ludicrous claim. The LIA most certainly is evident in the CET record.

    Rather than compute decadal averages, I’ll demonstrate this incontrovertible fact by listing the number of annual average temperatures in each range for representative decades:

    Little Ice Age

    1691-1700: five years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C & five with 8.01-9.00 C.
    1791-1800: one year with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, two with 8.01-9.00 C & seven with 9.01-10.00 C.

    Modern Warm Period

    1891-1900: no years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, three with 8.01-9.00 C, six with 9.01-10.00 C & one with 10.01-11.00 C.
    1991-2000: no years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, no with 8.01-9.00 C, four with 9.01-10.00 C & six with 10.01-11.00 C.

  232. I might add that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by
    ===============================
    The “end of the Little Ice Age” is simply an assumption. How can anyone say it ended when we don’t know the cause?

    Tell us what caused the Little Ice Age. If it truly has ended, then the cause must also have ended at the same time. Then explain why, whatever caused the end of the Little Ice Age, why that didn’t cause the Modern Warming?

    Because the Little Ice Age tells us that natural variability is high. Which is contrary to the assumptions of the Climate Models, that believe natural variability is low, and thus climate must respond primarily to forcings/feedbacks.

    But if natural variability is high, then climate may simply be responding to randomness. Like a drunk walking down a hallway, or the temperature of a house when controlled by a thermostat.
    Within limits, climate may simply wander left-right, high-low, without the need of any forcings/feedback.

  233. Jeff Alberts – do you not understand the concept of averages? Of course there is a global temperature (averaged). We just don’t know well what it is.

  234. Regarding my “why zero” question – anyone willing to calculate the longest possible non-zero trend ending any time before Aug 1, 2014?

  235. From the Department of “Warming is not in the atmosphere, it’s in the oceans.”

    Claim : 7E+22 Joules gained/decade

    How much warning is that, exactly?

    Volume of the oceans taken from:

    http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

    Intermediate results are shown
    10 yr/decade
    = 7E+21 Joules/yr
    4.186 Joules/deg/g
    = 1.67224E+21 Degree-grams/yr
    1000 g/kg
    = 1.67224E+18 degree-kg/yr
    1000 kg/m3
    = 1.67224E+15 degree-cu m/yr
    1,000,000,000 cu m/cu km
    = 1,672,241 degree-cu km/yr
    1,386,000,000 cu km of oceans
    = 0.001206523 deg/year for all oceans

    So excluding as a pittance the 10.6 million cu km of freshwater and ignoring the 30m cu km of ice, there is a claimed rise in ocean temperature of 0.0012 degrees per year taking place. The alarmist claim is that this represents a significant threat to the future of mankind.

    My first response to the gain in heat content is, “So what?” My second is that this is an unmeasurably low value that is undetectable with any means we presently have deployed. It cannot possibly be derived from measurements. Oh – the (dubious) claim to support the assertion is that the rise is detectable in the form of a rise in seal level. Relative to what, and measured with what, exactly?

    The thermal expansion of water at 4-15 deg C is well known. Is the expansion from 0.0012 degrees per year of ‘warming’ detectable by any existing technology? How would we separate groundwater pumping, ice melting/gain, sea floor changes and internal heat effects from thermal expansion in the absence of measurements of temperature?

    When Arctic sea ice melts the volume of sea water involved drops as it rises above the melting point because 2 degree water is more dense than 0 degree water. The physics of this are well known. Does this claimed net expansion calculation take into consideration the shrinkage of the water rising when in the range of melting to 4 deg C? Quite a large volume of the ocean surface waters are below 4 deg C all year. Any slight temperature rise in cold water would cause a drop in volume until it exceeded 4 degrees.

    Is there any traceable means to show that human emissions of CO2 cause any or all of this claimed rise in OHC?

    The general AGW claim is that human-sourced CO2 is retaining heat upon the Earth. In the absence of an atmospheric temperature rise, the claim is that the heat is accumulating, but being stored in the oceans, To my knowledge, there is no mechanism offered for CO2 to increase the temperature of the oceans but not the atmosphere. If the oceans were warmer, they would lose more heat to the air, and the air is not warmer casting doubt on the claim.

    If there is some deep ocean heating and there is no temperature rise in the middle and upper layers, then the heat cannot be coming from the Sun, it has to be coming from Earth’s internal processes.

    Which raises again my first reaction, “So What?”

  236. ferd berple says:
    August 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    For me, the LIA ended when average temperature returned to & stayed above the 3000 year trend line, the slope of which is down. That occurred, depending upon whether looking at decadal or 30-year averages, around 1850-70. It’s also visible in the rising trend line since mid-19th century (although of course the trend has been up since c. 1700, ie the trough of the LIA). There was a late 19th century warming, an early 20th century warming & a late 20th century warming, separated by flat to down cycles.

    IMO the causes of warmer & colder spells within both glacials & interglacials share some of the same causes, which are more numerous & extreme in glacials.

    There is a school of thought that climate is too chaotic for genuine cycles to exist, but IMO this hypothesis is easily falsified by the obvious cyclicality of glacial & interglacial cycles. If those exist, as they objectively do (along with cycles within glacials), then why not lesser cycles within interglacials, as well? There are also much longer cycles, on the scale of 150 million years & more.

  237. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade.
    =============
    that warming, if it exists, is confined to the deep oceans. We know from Argo that it is not occurring above 2k meters.

    the overturning rate on the deep oceans is on the order of 1000 years. we can be reasonably confident that people 1000 years from now don’t need our help with their climate. If they do, then place $1 in the bank, and leave the proceeds to people 1000 years from now…

    …due to the power of compound interest, 1000 years from now your $1 will be more than enough to pay for any warming you may have caused. Allowing for a doubling every 20 years, your original investment will be worth about 30 times the current US national debt, so maybe your can lend Uncle Sam a hand as well.

  238. Arno Arrak (August 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm) “If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to decrease, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. ”

    That is not how weather works. Thickness in any particular location is due to movement of air masses. Thus weather causes weather. Rainfall is not a function of average thickness from CO2 since that average increase is negligible in comparison to any weather change, almost every diurnal change, seasonal changes, etc.

  239. For me, the LIA ended when average temperature returned to & stayed above the 3000 year trend line
    =============
    but doesn’t this really argue that the cause of the LIA ended when the trend line started going up? Perhaps 100-200 years earlier? That whatever was causing the cooling must have ended much earlier, for the trend line to start upward and eventually cross the 3000 year trend line.

  240. Warmist Claptrap (August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm) “Well it was an alias, but useless now, since I’ve had to cancel it since YOU breached site policy by revealing a commenters e-mail address, Now it became a spam bucket because of your actions we have had to abandon that alias”

    Your email was revealed at August 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm and you already got spam?

  241. and, if the cause of the LIA ended much earlier, then how do we know that the current warming is not simply a continuation of the trend started perhaps 300 years ago?

  242. for example, think about winter. Dec 23 is the shortest day of the year. But temperatures continue to fall until about February, and then start to warm up. So why would the LIA be any different. Whatever caused the LIA may well have ended years before temperatures started to rise, which means they could still be rising until 1997 for the same reason they initially started to rise 300 years earlier.

  243. Phil. posted a youtube video showing ice on the Delaware rtiver.

    Pretty thin ice there, Phil. No comparison to what George Washington encountered during the LIA.

    But Phil. is a climate alarmist who believes that global warming is gonna getcha. Disregarding his belief system is the best course of action for rational folks.

  244. ferd berple says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    The LIA didn’t end IMO at its trough in the 1690s, although I guess you could view that the Modern WP started then, ie c. 1700. However I prefer the standard definition of the period, ending in mid-19th century because it jibes with the sort of trend analysis I do in investing.

    In market & economic analysis, you can only know for sure in hindsight when a trend, such as a recession or bull or bear market, has reversed. For a recession, the standard definition requires two consecutive Qs of negative “growth”. For a secular market trend reversal, at least two counter-(previous) trend cycles are needed.

    The LIA was a secular cold period, but like all secular trends, it contained sharp counter-trend “rallies”, perhaps most noticeably the remarkably rapid recovery from the Maunder Minimum 1690s trough in the early 18th century. But that rally was not followed by more warming. Rather T cooled or stayed flat until the pro-trend crash of the Dalton Minimum, which, as you’d expect in trend analysis, was less severe than the Maunder trough. Then another flat to down period occurred until mid-19th century. Had the late 19th century warming & the flat to cool phase after it been followed by another cooling spell in the early 20th century rather than a warming, then the LIA would still be in effect. But the first warming wasn’t & so the LIA isn’t. This trend reversal was confirmed, as market analysts say, but the third warming cycle of the now new secular warm period, the Modern.

    ferd berple says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    As noted above, the LIA didn’t end in 1700. That was just its trough. Cold persisted as the major, ie secular, trend until c. 1850 (a little later in my estimation). From the late 19th century, the trend reversed such that we’re now in a secular warming phase, but it won’t last. The long term secular trend is down, so Earth is most likely to revert to that falling trend.

    However, this could be a super interglacial, so instead of the next glaciation beginning in a few to several thousand years, it could take tens of thousands.

  245. dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Nor is the Delaware the same body of water it was back in its less heat- & substance-polluted, unchanneled, free-flowing days. Besides which, it’s the average that matters. Sure there are cold winters in which ice forms now, but that was usual during the LIA.

  246. dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 10:39 am

    Regarding anecdotal data, you mention ice fairs on the Thames. There are good reasons why the Thames froze over during some winters in past centuries. Before the construction of the Thames Embankment in the 1860s, the Thames was broader and shallower meaning that it flowed more slowly. It froze more easily, therefore, in the pre-1860s. There is plenty of evidence that the Thames froze over numerous times and not just during the LIA. The following “MWP” years also saw the Thames completely frozen

    1063: for fourteen weeks;

    Subsequent dates have more evidence than presented by Charles Mackay!

    1076: The river was again frozen over.

    1092: (from the Saturday Magazine 1835 -)

    [In] 1092, in the reign of William Rufus, is recorded a frost “whereby”, in the words of an old chronicler, “the great streams [of England] were congealed in such a manner that they could draw two hundred horsemen and carriages over them; whilst at their thawing, many bridges, both of wood and stone, were borne down, and divers water-mills were broken up, and carried away.

    1114: for four weeks;

    1150: According to The History and Survey of London and Its Environs from the Earliest Period by B Lambert, 1806 –

    We are told that in the year 1150 the summer proved so extremely wet, that a dearth almost equal to famine ensued ; and the winter of this year was remarkable for a severe frost, which commenced on the ninth of December, and continued till the beginning of March, during a great part of which time, the Thames was frozen so hard as to admit of carts and other carriages passing over the ice.

    Your mind is closed, John, that’s all. Confirmation bias rules your thinking.

    On the contrary. It is you that is perfectly happy to lap up any mythical drivel if it suits your preconceived ideas.

  247. There is a school of thought that climate is too chaotic for genuine cycles to exist, but IMO this hypothesis is easily falsified by the obvious cyclicality of glacial & interglacial cycles.
    =============
    the ocean tides on earth are chaotic. you cannot hope to calculate them from first principles the way climate models try and calculate climate. forcings and feedbacks yield nonsense. yet we do a reasonably good job of calculating the tides using what for want of a better name is astrology.

    unfortunately there is a lot of scientific prejudice in applying ancient techniques to new problems. there is an insistence on “mechanism”. yet we learned to predict the orbit of the planets long before we knew about gravity. we learned to predict the seasons long before we knew anything about orbital mechanics.

    have any of the climate models been able to do any better than the Farmer’s Almanac at predicting climate? I expect the answer is no.

  248. Warmist Claptrap:

    Your whinge at August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm which is here repeatedly refers to “our email address”.

    “Our”? How many of you are there?

    Richard

  249. 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.
    =================
    this, coupled with record CO2 emissions due to industrialization, argues strongly that while we may in theory understand the effects of CO2, the effects in practice don’t follow the theory.

  250. milodonharlani says:
    August 3, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 10:39 am

    John Finn says:

    1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.
    ——————————-

    What a ludicrous claim. The LIA most certainly is evident in the CET record.

    It’s not a ludicrous claim. It’s fact and your attempt to show an LIA does nothing of the sort.

    1691-1700: five years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C & five with 8.01-9.00 C.

    The data for this period is completely unreliable. You need to read up on how it was determined.

    1791-1800: one year with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, two with 8.01-9.00 C & seven with 9.01-10.00 C.

    Modern Warm Period

    1891-1900: no years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, three with 8.01-9.00 C, six with 9.01-10.00 C & one with 10.01-11.00 C

    As it happens there is a temperature peak during 1891-1900. The decadal average is .~9,27 deg while the 1791-1800 decadal average is slightly lower at ~9.09 deg but that’s a ‘cherry pick’. The 2 decades either side of 1891-1900 (i.e. 1881-90 and 1901-10) were both cooler than 1791-1800. The decadal average for 1821-30 of ~9.36 deg is the highest decadal average for the 1800s and isn’t matched until 1921-30 – 100 years later. .

    1991-2000: no years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, no with 8.01-9.00 C, four with 9.01-10.00 C & six with 10.01-11.00 C.

    I’d keep quiet about 1991-2000 if I were you since it’s decadal average is considerably higher than any decade in the 19th century and a good bit higher than most other decades in the 20th century. It does sort of suggest something unusual has been happening since ~1980.

  251. ferd berple says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Clearly the climate models are worse than worthless for public policy purposes. They commit the fallacy of begging the question, ie assuming what they intend to demonstrate. They’re designed to yield a desired result, ie monotonic increase in GASTA with increase in CO2. But Mother Nature has slapped them down since the late 1990s. From the late ’70s to ’90s, they worked OK purely by accident, since T & CO2 just happened both to be going up during that internal. They also sucked in hindcast as well as forecast, so were never adequately validated. The GCMs were born falsified, which is why a massive propaganda & suppression program is required to maintain their phony results.

    Many here resist the idea of climatic cycles within interglacials, but IMO their existence is well supported by paleo proxy data & instrumental observations in the Holocene & proxies in previous interglacials, as per the links I’ve posted in the past. Leif for instance isn’t convinced that Bond Cycles are genuine. IMO they are, &, as per your comment, I also think we’re getting closer to understanding what drives them, if I may commit the heresy of imagining that something other than CO2 “forces” climate change.

  252. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Kitchener:

    I write to draw attention to your post at August 3, 2014 at 1:00 pm which is here and addresses the excuse for global warming having stopped which proclaims that heat is accumulating in the oceans.

    Your excellent post is useful reference for others because it says and expands upon

    The thermal expansion of water at 4-15 deg C is well known. Is the expansion from 0.0012 degrees per year of ‘warming’ detectable by any existing technology? How would we separate groundwater pumping, ice melting/gain, sea floor changes and internal heat effects from thermal expansion in the absence of measurements of temperature?

    I made the same point to the astonishingly stupid troll who posted as ‘chuck’ on another thread where eventually he was deleted for using a false email identity.

    This latest warmunist meme of “the oceans are gaining heat so global warming has not stopped” seems to have been circulated as a campaigning issue by ‘troll central’. Your fine post provides the responses people need when confronted with it.

    Richard

  253. John Finn says

    Were there a such thing as ice ages in you view? During the medieval warming period they grew grapes for wine in northern England. The periods of population increase on the steppes of Russia from warming periods caused successive waves of people invading Europe and China when the climate again began to cool. Climate change is just a part of the nature this chaotic system. It is the idea that it is static which is ridiculous.

  254. In reply to:
    Phil. says, August 3, 2014 at 7:34 am:
    “Here’s how Clough and Iacono describe it in the paper from which that figure was taken:
    “The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract“

    William:
    The warmists did not look for another explanation for the cooling of the stratopause. i.e. Cooling of the stratopause does not prove CO2 caused the cooling. The warmists are ignoring the observation that disproves their theory. (See no warming of tropical troposphere below.)

    A reduction in low level cloud cover will cause cooling of the stratopause. (The refected short wave radiation is absorbed by ozone in the stratopause so less cloud cover results in less reflected short wave radiation and a colder stratopause).

    The warmist are ignoring the fact that there is no warming of the tropical troposphere at 8 km which is a fundamental prediction of their theory. The warming of the troposphere is required to warm the surface of the planet by radiation. The predicted warming of the troposphere at roughly 8 km above the surface of the planet by CO2 then increases the amount of water vapour in that region which causes the amplification. The predicted increase in water vapour is not due to increased evaporation but rather the direct CO2 warming. There is unfortunately no measured tropical tropospheric hot spot which is observational evidence that the something is inhibiting the CO2 warming of the tropical troposphere.

    The CO2 increase has almost no direct affect on temperatures in the lower regions of the atmosphere due to amount of water vapour in the lower regions (water vapour and CO2 overlap in absorbed radiation) and the higher number of CO2 molecules in the lower regions of the atmosphere. Higher in the atmosphere there is less water vapour and due to the reduction in pressure less CO2 molecules. It is for these reasons (less water vapour and comparatively less CO2 molecules be the anthropogenic change) so that the region of the atmosphere at 8km (varies depending on latitude) where there is predicted to be the most direct CO2 warming. It is big thing therefore if there is no warming at 8km in the tropical troposphere.

    Where is the hot spot that the CO2 theory predicts and that is require to amplify warming in the tropics? There is no observed tropic troposphere hot spot!!!! This observation indicates there is one or more fundamental errors or omissions in the warmist models compared to the actual atmosphere. The problem (difference between real world vs what is assumed to be the case) is there is free charge in the atmosphere at higher altitudes which shifts the emitted frequency of the CO2 molecules which thereby enables the radiation to escape.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/

    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by Douglass et al.
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

  255. John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    Why should I keep quiet about 1991-2000? It was a naturally warm decade well within normal limits for the Holocene.

    Any other series of comparable comparisons would demonstrate the validity of the LIA. Take for example 60 year periods to try to capture natural PDO variability. Those during the LIA would show average temperatures lower than during the Modern WP, as well as during the even warmer Medieval WP (based upon Lamb’s extrapolation backwards). Do the arithmetic yourself. Here is my best guess at current & past PDOs (they’re not quite this regular, but again, good enough for sake of comparison):

    1977-2036 (now entering the cool phase)
    1917-1976 (height of warm phase a lot closer to the recent warm phase than rigged numbers show)
    1857-1916 (first PDO of the Modern Warm Period)
    1797-1856 (last PDO of the LIA, including the colder than usual Dalton Minimum)
    1737-1796 (pretty flat phases, despite exceptionally cold 1740)
    1677-1736 (Interesting for containing both an unusually cold cool phase & rapidly rising warm phase rebound)
    1617-1676 (have to rely on Lamb’s reconstruction for prior to 1660).

    Lamb used 50 year periods. There has not yet been a 50 year period in the Modern WP warmer than the hottest of those during the Medieval, while those during the LIA, even the hottest in the early 18th century, doesn’t come close to those of the Medieval.

    The CET numbers are perfectly adequate for such a comparison, as they’re supported by every other sort of evidence. I know how CET is compiled, including the fact that its figures for the past 30 years are too high, not adequately adjusted for UHI & changed atmospheric conditions. But still OK for the comparison I made.

    You can’t claim that there is no LIA in the CET, then assert that the CET data aren’t reliable enough to detect such a signal.

  256. Mr Finn, in saying something special has been going on since 1980, with the implication that it must be to do with global warming, not only perpetrates the fallacy of false cause, in that there is no reliable way to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic causes of warming, but also omits to mention the great el Nino of 1990, which had two predecessors in the past 300 years, and which cannot have been caused by CO2 because CO2 rises monotonically and the great el Nino was a spike which, however, elevated global temperature by around a sixth of a Kelvin, suggesting that the source of the heat may have been subsea-volcanic. The plain fact is that we do not know either way, but we do know that the overall rate of warming since 1950 is just 0.12 K/decade, and that since 1990 it is just 0.14 K/decade – not exactly a thrilling acceleration.

    The main point remains. The extreme predictions of the models on which the scare was built have been falsified by events. The honest thing to do in the circumstances is to do what the IPCC has done, accept that the models were wrong, and greatly reduce the near-term projections. The IPCC ought also to have reduced its longer-term projections as well, but of course that would be fatal to its continued existence.

  257. I do want to echo Richard Courtney’s congratulations to Crispin in Waterloo or wherever, who has provided the specific-heat-capacity calculations that show just how little the oceans are warming when one converts the claimed heat content change for the oceans into Kelvin. The rate of ocean warming is barely above a tenth of a Kelvin per century. No surprise, then, that the atmosphere is not warming.

    A question for Crispin: All other things being equal, if the oceans warm at 0.1 Kelvin per century, at what rate will the atmosphere warm in response to the ocean warming?

  258. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    I assume you mean 1997 rather than 1990.

    IMO the strongest recent El Niño occurred in 1997-98. Another “super” El Niño happened in 1982-83. There was a triple El Niño later in the ’80s, but IMO nothing special transpired in 1990.

  259. milodonharlani says:
    August 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    I know how CET is compiled, including the fact that its figures for the past 30 years are too high, not adequately adjusted for UHI & changed atmospheric conditions.

    So tell us in what way the UHI adjustment is insufficient. Give us a link to any analysis you’ve done which leads you to this conclusion. This should be interesting.

  260. John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    PS: Not only is the warming from c. 1977 to 2006 well within normal bounds for the Holocene, most of the 11,400 years of which have been hotter than this interval, but our current interglacial has been cooler than at least two of the previous four. The Eemian, the last interglacial (during MIS 5), was a lot hotter than the Holocene (plus longer), as was that of MIS 11 (a lot longer). Those of MIS 7 & 9 (possibly shorter than the Holocene) might have experienced peak heat less than the Holocene.

  261. John Finns says

    Did you even read the post from Roy Spencer that you put in your reply?
    If you did I guess this means you now admit that your argument was wrong!

  262. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    Eight is close to 0 on the keyboard.

    Back to your earlier comment on a correlation between seismic activity & ENSO, note that the 1982/83 super El Niño is associated with the El Chichon eruption, plus earthquakes, & a period with a high number of earthquakes coincides with the super-duper El Niño of 1997/98.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/99EO00202/pdf

    Activity around Easter Island, where the East Pacific Rise meets the Nazca Plate, seems to correlate the best.

  263. milodonharlani says:
    August 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    It is indeed good:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/16/revisiting-temperature-reconstructions-used-in-climate-change-modeling/

    Devastating, in fact, to the reliability of Met numbers since at least 1981.

    Ok – let me tell you my experiences. I live slap bang in the Central England area. I can assure you that the area has warmed quite appreciably since 1980. I have access to a number of local weather records and I know exactly where they have come from. I know the history of the areas and the level of urbanisation that has taken place.. I can provide a number of local temperature records from locations which have changed little over the past 60 or 70 years. I can tell you that the temperature trends of these locations is higher – and in some cases considerably higher – than the CET trend over the last 40 years. Hadley have compensated for UHI in the CET record. In my opinion – they have OVER-compensated.

    As an aside, I find it laughable that you trust the pre-1700 CET observations but cast doubt on the more recent record. .

  264. John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Not laughable at all. Adjustments since the 1980s have been intentionally corrupted with bias. Reconstructions before 1700 were done in good faith by a real scientist, Dr. Lamb, without an agenda.

    Talk to Tony Brown, this blog’s expert on the CET, about your local records. I don’t doubt that it warmed in central England from c. 1977 to early in this century. That’s exactly what I would expect during the warm phase of the PDO, especially during a Warm Period like the Modern, Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian or Holocene Climatic Optimum, as opposed to a Cold Period, like the LIA or Dark Ages. I do however question the magnitude of the recent warming as reported by the Met Office & other gatekeeping druids.

    But nothing you said is an argument against the Met’s bumbling (at best) with the records since 1981 in the link I posted. You asked for evidence of failure properly to adjust for the UHI effect. I provided it.

  265. Bob Boder says:
    August 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    John Finns says

    Did you even read the post from Roy Spencer that you put in your reply?
    If you did I guess this means you now admit that your argument was wrong!

    In what way is my argument wrong?

    RS shows that the oceans can warm while the surface doesn’t. He doesn’t agree that this is what has happened but only looks at post-2004 data. We need to examine a much longer period to assess changes in wind speed. The “pause” is supposed to go back as far as 1996.

  266. Bob Boder says:
    August 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Further to my previous post, t’s worth noting this comment by Roy Spencer

    I only bring this issue up because I think there are enough legitimate problems with global warming theory to not get distracted by arguing over issues which are reasonably well understood.

    I think most of us will agree with that, Roy. Unfortunately there are others who disagree and the result is that genuine sceptics are labelled as ‘deniers’ and ‘cranks’.

  267. milodonharlani says:
    August 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    Maybe I should have said warm phase of the AMO, since it’s not in precise synch with the PDO & central England lies more under Atlantic oscillatory control.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, strong warm phases tend to follow unusually cold phases. There’s no better example in the CET than the powerful hot flash of c. 1710 to 1739 following the extreme cold phase of c. 1680 to 1709. As with glacial periods, swings tend to be more extreme during cooler than warmer periods.

  268. John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Few who post here “deny” that CO2 can produce a warming effect under some real world conditions. In fact, most are barred because they belong to the “Skydragon Slayer” cult, whose members have well earned their exclusion.

  269. John Finn: Have a look at this Roy Spencer post

    By what mechanism can the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere cause warming of the deep ocean without warming the surface and troposphere? Sure it is possible in special conditions for the deep ocean to warm without the surface and troposphere warming, but how can that be caused by atmospheric CO2 accumulation?

  270. John Finn says, August 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm:

    “RS shows that the oceans can warm while the surface doesn’t. He doesn’t agree that this is what has happened but only looks at post-2004 data. We need to examine a much longer period to assess changes in wind speed. The “pause” is supposed to go back as far as 1996.”

    That’s not the issue, John Finn. And I’m quite sure you know that. Of course the bulk of the oceans can warm without the surface and the troposphere doing so. But that simply means that it’s not the atmosphere doing it. Because in that case, the mechanism would have to be that first the troposphere warms, then the surface and THEN the bulk of the oceans.

    ‘CO2 heat’ (for lack of a better word) can’t just magically turn up in the ocean out of nowhere. It can’t heat the ocean directly. Because the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere. It will have to make the temperature gradient away from the surface smaller which in turn makes the gradient through the surface to the bulk underneath smaller. And THEN the solar heat down there will have a harder time getting out. That’s the theory, isn’t it …? But then we need to see tropospheric warming first, then surface warming and then the corresponding ocean warming. We can’t see no tropospheric warming, then no surface warming and then still ocean warming.

  271. Finn

    The argument is that it is possible in Roy Spencer’s article but it is not a significant cause of ocean warming. Technically there can be a transfer but it is also not the cause of the pause in atmospheric warming or the cause of supposed ocean warming.

    If the oceans are warming this is not the cause. If the oceans are warming what is the cause?

  272. Fellow Readers,

    A number of my previous comments were redacted due to my having inadvertently breached the site rules, and I apologise to all concerned for the contretemps which then ensued. An old alias which had expired was used, and I had thought erroneously that the messages had been redacted due to some other, more insidious reason. What nonsense we are all capable of when we think we have been snubbed.

    I have asked the moderators to delete all the nonsense comments which were redacted, because of my error in breaching the rules, so that I might reiterate the valid remarks which I had previous made, that were then expunged from view. I shall not repost entirely verbatim, but instead rationalise the points I had made.

    Summary :

    Starting at a comment made at August 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    I make the point in reply to
    Phil. says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm
    That spectrum is the IR as observed from space, the reason there is little energy emitted in the 15micron band is because it has been absorbed by CO2!

    I said that this leaves no energy to be absorbed by any further increase in CO2, if the band is already blocked, whatever caused that blockage in the 15 micron wavelength.
    …………….

    Then at August 3, 2014 at 8:27 am

    I made the point in replying to
    MikeB says:
    August 3, 2014 at 4:22 am

    Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse
    effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that
    the greenhouse effect is not real..

    I said that this was a straw man argument, and this is not what I
    was saying.What I and others have repeatedly stated is that the
    greenhouse effect is indeed real…. in a greenhouse !

    I noted that MikeB stated that, “the name’ greenhouse effect’ is
    somewhat inappropriate
    “, but however I said that it is not only
    inappropriate“, but this is a deliberate and prolonged deception,
    nowadays. When at first people had this hypothesis, that may have
    seemed an appropriate term, so as to relate what was, and still is,
    a complex issue of atmospheric physics, to lay persons and
    non-specialised scientists, and so on.

    Nowadays, when so many have pointed out the error in those
    comparisons, it cannot remain unchallenged. The misnomer is
    a distraction, and used very deliberately by those who would wish
    to propagate the myth, that we Humans, can somehow easily
    regulate the weather, climate, and temperature of the Earth,
    by controlling only one parameter in the thin layer, we Humans
    call “The Atmosphere”. I am not saying that Monckton is one
    of those who uses the term as a deliberate deception in that
    fashion, but rather he has been deceived into using it thus.

    I said that this is a type of deception, a failure by omission,
    to explain the real scenario. We travel the Universe daily,
    on what is in fact, a 5.972e24 kg, wet rock, wobbling on its
    axis, and spinning at speed, at its equator at around 1,650 kph,
    whilst orbiting a massive Star, at an additional 108,000 kph,
    with a closely coupled 7.35e22 kg satellite, which together
    with our companion planets all travel uncontrollable through
    space at an additional 792,000 kph.

    To say that we can somehow control the climate down here
    on the surface of our planet, by manipulating relatively minute
    amounts of what is already a rare trace gas, without reference
    to all that, and to attempt such oversimplification, by the
    deliberate misnomer of “greenhouse effect”, is wholly bogus,
    hokum, and fraudulent science. It is not a trivial matter, as was
    suggested, or at least implied.

    Again, There is NO Greenhouse Effect in the Earth’s Atmosphere.
    There is nothing even comparable to a greenhouse effect, because
    the Earth’s Atmosphere is NOT a Greenhouse.

    There are more appropriate scientific terms for describing
    hypotheses, and conjectures, about the operation of this
    coupled Solar System and its atmospheric phenomena, so
    we should then use them.

    I made some statements about using the logic Aristotle, and
    recommended some video and website for further study, but
    for sake of brevity in this post, I shall not repeat all that again.
    …………..

    Then at August 3, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    I made the point in replying to
    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 3, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Those who deny the scientific evidence that there is a greenhouse
    effect are not welcome here …….. I hope the moderators will intervene
    to follow site policy in keeping them out, so that a rational discussion
    can be maintained.

    This is what I had assumed was the the cause of my several postings
    being redacted. That was an erroneous assumption on my part,
    because I had broken the rules inadvertently by using an old and
    defunct email address.

    I then went on to criticise Lord Monckton for this call to censorship.
    Frankly it is beneath his dignity to ask for that, in the fashion which
    he did, and for me was a sort of pale echo, of the shenanigans we
    have come to expect in other quarters, I am sure you all know.

    Lord Monckton himself has been censored in just the same way that
    he now called for others to have their opinions censored in this blog.

    What I have consistently argued in these pages in this article, is that
    there may be some effect of warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, caused
    by the effect you and others have described, but I said that
    1. it is trivial, and
    2. it is NOT a “greenhouse effect”, because the Earth’s
    atmosphere is not comparable to a greenhouse.

    I further assert that the moniker “Greenhouse Effect”, continues to
    be used erroneously in that regard, and deliberately to confuse the
    real issue here. which might be described as for instance molecular
    Quantum transfer warming, or a host of other less befuddling terms.

    The thing is you see, that there is a real thing called the “Greenhouse
    Effect”, and it relates to actual greenhouses, and similar constructions,
    like an automobile, or a tramcar, or even a glass fronted office block.
    The use of the term in a slang fashion, to describe the actions of the
    Earth’s atmosphere is entirely inappropriate, and the cause of very
    many specious arguments and false dichotomies among debaters
    who essentially hold the same point of view.

    I said that we can debate the detail of Monckton’s hypotheses about
    interactions of the molecules of particular gasses in the Earth’s
    atmosphere, and Photons, using Quantum Physics, or whatever
    other science or evidence he might wish to bring to the table, but I
    took umbrage at this attempt to try to censor the debate so as to
    avert criticism of his apparent assertion that the Earth’s atmosphere
    behaves as, and can be likened to a “Greenhouse”.

    What would Aristotle have said to that stance Monckton took …..
    Those who deny …. are not welcome here
    ….. intervene to …. keeping them out

    Nullius in verba (Take Nobody’s Word for it), Lord Monckton

    That is a motto that he himself has often quoted and in
    the English words, as well as in the original Latin.
    It is the motto of The Royal Society of London,

    I said to Lord Monckton :

    Indeed your story about the models disagreeing from reality,
    is by all reasonable accounts correct, I am not arguing that what
    you say is incorrect so far as that story goes, but when you then
    digress into some realm of quantum physics to explain about why
    CO2 then heats the atmosphere “like tiny radiators”, because of
    the “greenhouse effect”, which actually goes against the observed
    reality, that CO2 is rising and the atmosphere is not heating up.
    You yourself have said so.That is most incongruous, isn’t it.

    Others in here have written in similar terms.
    …………

    The other remarks which I posted subsequent to the
    August 3, 2014 at 12:03 pm, were all about attempting to get
    to the bottom of why my posts after August 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm,
    had been mysteriously redacted, seemingly by harsh diktat,
    and I have asked the moderators to delete all that irrelevant
    contretemps, which added nothing to the debate and only
    served to cause angst all round. I can only apologise
    wholeheartedly for that distraction.

    I shall read through the comments here again tomorrow,
    and try to answer some other points which were subsequently
    put to me, but that I have not been able to reply to, during this
    rather tiresome hiatus. I thank you all for your tolerance of
    my foolishness in this matter.

  273. Since it was first aired on British television, as the weeks have rolled into months, and then years, Martin Durkin’s documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” has been looking more and more like a “gold standard” documentary on climate change.

    Give it another two years, and Durkin will have to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize… “for his effort to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about climate change that lays the foundation for no measures needed to counteract such change.”

  274. Bob Boder says, August 3, 2014 at 5:54 pm:

    “Technically there can be a transfer (…)”

    Of what? From where to where? Heat? From cool atmosphere to warm sea surface? Er, no.

  275. Kristian (August 3, 2014 at 7:16 pm) “Of what? From where to where? Heat? From cool atmosphere to warm sea surface? Er, no.”

    The sea surface is warmer in some locations than the atmosphere, but cooler in other locations or even in the same location depending on time of day. So we know heat transfer goes in both directions depending on location and time of day. After that we have to consider the amount of transfer which will depend on wind, precipitation and other local weather factors. It’s hard to figure out and even harder to add up to say there is net heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, but you are correct that on average there is

    That is because the sun is the largest source of ocean warmth, not warm rain or warm air in various locations. Then the question is becomes whether the amount of heat that the ocean is giving up is changing over time.

  276. dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    Phil. posted a youtube video showing ice on the Delaware rtiver.

    Pretty thin ice there, Phil. No comparison to what George Washington encountered during the LIA.

    What exactly did Washington encounter then, you appear to be basing your idea on a painting made in Germany 75 years after the fact? Leutze apparently based his picture of the ice on the ice he saw on the river Rhine which is quite different from the flat ice floes seen on the Delaware. Here’s another shot from the actual location of the crossing:

    Ice Floes on Delaware River

    As I pointed out anecdotal evidence such as that painting is not to be relied on, you should have read the article I linked to.

    But Phil. is a climate alarmist who believes that global warming is gonna getcha. Disregarding his belief system is the best course of action for rational folks.

    You have no clue what my ‘belief system’ is.

  277. Warmist Claptrap says:
    August 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm
    I make the point in reply to
    Phil. says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm
    That spectrum is the IR as observed from space, the reason there is little energy emitted in the 15micron band is because it has been absorbed by CO2!

    I said that this leaves no energy to be absorbed by any further increase in CO2, if the band is already blocked, whatever caused that blockage in the 15 micron wavelength.

    Further increase in CO2 causes broadening of the absorption band which leads to the logarithmic dependence on pCO2.

  278. Kristian says: August 3, 2014 at 4:33 am

    Ron House says, August 3, 2014 at 12:34 am:

    “Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”

    Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards.

    I do wish people would read the comments they reply to carefully before resorting to insults. I wrote:

    When I get some time I want to write at length about this matter, but for here and now, a few basic facts.

    I was trying to condense a huge amount of material into a few words that might be understood by someone completely out of his depth on the subject. But I stand by my words, even if they are not a complete exposition of my meaning. My meaning is this: Given the radiation profile of the planet into space, there is an effective temperature at each frequency, which is the temperature of the radiating layer at which photons at that layer first get a ‘free line of sight’ to outer space. (You admit this when you talk of “radiating layers”.) Photons from layers inside this layer are effectively absorbed by molecules in the layers above. The Stefan Boltzmann law tells us what the temperature of that radiating layer has to be, for a black body, and can be adjusted to account for non-black bodies. Thus the temperature at that layer is “determined” (get it?) by the physical fact that it wouldn’t be radiating at that level unless it had that temperature.

    Next, given what we calculate the temperature must be at a certain height, we can calculate the maximum value it can be at the surface, because any gas at a temperature higher than that determined by the adiabatic compression of a parcel of gas descending from the upper layer to the lower one will be less dense than the gas at the temperature calculated from adiabatic compression. Being less dense, it will rise and the atmosphere will convect.

    In none of this do I consider or assert which “end” of the system is driving the other. If I wanted to talk about that, I would use words like “cause” (meaning a physical process), not words like “determine”, which refer to fact-finding and drawing of conclusions.

    You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.

    This is how we observe the real world works (as opposed to the purely theoretical bubble world of climate ‘science’).

    And your discussion of the mechanical aspects of it is pretty much correct and contradicts nothing I said, so your snide put-downs are neither required nor justified. Keep them to yourself and try to be civil in future.

  279. Phil. says:
    August 3, 2014 at 7:51 pm (arguing with)

    dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    Phil. posted a youtube video showing ice on the Delaware rtiver.

    Pretty thin ice there, Phil. No comparison to what George Washington encountered during the LIA.

    What exactly did Washington encounter then, you appear to be basing your idea on a painting made in Germany 75 years after the fact? Leutze apparently based his picture of the ice on the ice he saw on the river Rhine which is quite different from the flat ice floes seen on the Delaware. Here’s another shot from the actual location of the crossing:

    Ice Floes on Delaware River

    As I pointed out anecdotal evidence such as that painting is not to be relied on, you should have read the article I linked to.

    Ah, but what about 1800-1815? Surely we’d not yet gotten “out” of the Little Ice Age by that time? Temperatures in 1800 were little different from the war years of 1776 – 1783, right? No Anthropathethic Global Warming yet either in those few years in between, right?

    Yet Cornelius Vanderbilt earned his first reputation in transportation ferrying “commuters” across the ice-filled lower Hudson River between Staten island and business district across in Manhattan each winter: Getting his customers across/through the ice when no one else could. Or would dare.

    Overall, YES, the Little Ice Age was substantially colder than present. We (collectively) recoevered from the lIA with no help from man’s release of CO2. We got into the LIA from the Medieval Warming Period with no practice of “burying” CO2 into the ground either.

  280. RACookPE1978 says:

    Overall, YES, the Little Ice Age was substantially colder than present. We (collectively) recovered from the lIA with no help from man’s release of CO2. We got into the LIA from the Medieval Warming Period with no practice of “burying” CO2 into the ground either.

    Exactly right. CO2 is simply not a playa in the natural scheme of things. The ‘carbon’ scare was fabricated in order to pave the way to much higher taxes. And it came damn close to working.

    But fortunately, due to the internet and with the help of scientifically literate folks, it looks like the catastrophic AGW nonsense is going down in flames. Even non-scientists can be very logical. They understand that a tiny trace gas that we exhale, and which is necessary for all life on earth, is not the control knob of the planet’s thermostat.

    The people on the other side of the debate are not scientists, either. They are politicians, or political activists, or rent-seekers, or a combination.They only have a sciency veneer. If they were honest scientists, they would be skeptics. But one thing unites all the climate alarmists: their complete lack of scientific skepticism. Rather, they are True Believers who are pushing their false alarm. This debate over the MWP and LIA is a case in point.

    There is so much evidence supporting the existence of the LIA and the MWP that there is no credible argument to the contrary. Indeed, there weren’t any such arguments prior to the cAGW scare. It was just about universally accepted that those recent warming and cooling cycles naturally occurred during the Holocene.

    Now the alarmist clique is just backing and filling; running interference because they see their narrative being debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. Their arguments are amusing, because they are so weak. Historians will laugh at their wild-eyed nonsense, and for good reason: their arguments are about as scientific as those of astrologers or phrenologists.

    Alarmists will never man up and admit they were wrong. No, they will have to be beat down into submission. But because skeptics have the facts on their side, that won’t be hard to do.

  281. John Finn:

    In your post at August 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm you assert and ask

    In what way is my argument wrong?

    RS shows that the oceans can warm while the surface doesn’t. He doesn’t agree that this is what has happened but only looks at post-2004 data. We need to examine a much longer period to assess changes in wind speed. The “pause” is supposed to go back as far as 1996.

    Oh dear! You really, really do refuse to learn!

    You are wrong because ocean heat content is completely irrelevant to the fact that global warming has stopped.

    You introduced the completely irrelevant issue of ocean heat content as a red-herring intended to obfuscate the fact that global warming has stopped. But the reality has been explained to you repeatedly in this thread and before that another thread. In this thread I first explained it for you at August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am here. I repeat – for the second time in this thread – what I then wrote and you persist in pretending you have not been told.

    Please consider his daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.

    Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase energy.

    Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
    That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.

    All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.

    Your nonsense is not converted to sense by your repeating it despite being repeatedly told that it is daft.

    Richard

  282. milodonharlani says:
    August 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Not laughable at all. Adjustments since the 1980s have been intentionally corrupted with bias. Reconstructions before 1700 were done in good faith by a real scientist, Dr. Lamb, without an agenda.

    Now I might really learn something new. Do tell us about Hubert Lamb’s CET reconstructions. Then show us proof of the “intentionally corrupted” adjustments.

    Talk to Tony Brown, this blog’s expert on the CET, about your local records.

    So this blog has an “expert on the CET”, does it ? Does Anthony know this? What exactly makes Tony Brown any more of an expert than, say, me? What papers has Tony published?

  283. richardscourtney says:
    August 4, 2014 at 12:41 am

    Richard

    This is a link to the Charney Report published in 1979

    http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

    Read it and note the comments relating to ocean heat transfer. Thirty five years ago (and before there was any measurable warming) scientists were aware of the thermal capacity of the oceans and their ability to delay atmospheric warming. Check page 2 (Summary and Conclusions). If OHC is increasing then the climate system is warming – and global warming is happening. Whether or not this is a problem is not the issue.

  284. John Finn (August 4, 2014 at 2:53 am) “Thirty five years ago (and before there was any measurable warming) scientists were aware of the thermal capacity of the oceans and their ability to delay atmospheric warming.”

    The oceans are integrated into the climate models so the only explanation for the 16 year pause, if one believes the models, is that there has been 16 years of unpredictable ocean weather that has caused the ocean to give up less of its mostly solar generated heat to the atmosphere.

    If it were true that a warmer atmosphere has caused less heat transfer from the ocean, then that result would have been predicted by the models.

  285. John Finn:

    re your silly post at August 4, 2014 at 2:53 am.

    We are discussing the fact that global warming has stopped.
    Ocean heat content is not relevant to the fact that global warming has stopped.

    We are not discussing the real climatology that was conducted before the global warming scare.

    The reality that global warming has stopped is not affected by refusal to face that reality or by your attempts to talk about other things.

    In summation, your attempts are to avoid discussion of the fact that global warming has stopped are silly.

    Richard

  286. John Finn:

    At August 4, 2014 at 2:02 am you ask concerning CET

    What exactly makes Tony Brown any more of an expert than, say, me?

    Tony Brown has studied climate data with especial relevance to the CET for decades, has written several articles (some published on WUWT and on Judith Curry’s blog), and is highly respected by e.g. UK Met. Office for his knowledge of the subject. In short, he is probably the individual with most knowledge of the CET.

    On the other hand, you have yet to demonstrate that you know anything about anything.

    Richard

  287. eric1skeptic says:
    August 4, 2014 at 4:32 am
    John Finn (August 4, 2014 at 2:53 am) “Thirty five years ago (and before there was any measurable warming) scientists were aware of the thermal capacity of the oceans and their ability to delay atmospheric warming.”

    The oceans are integrated into the climate models so the only explanation for the 16 year pause, if one believes the models, is that there has been 16 years of unpredictable ocean weather that has caused the ocean to give up less of its mostly solar generated heat to the atmosphere.

    You are introducing a completely different argument, i.e. the validity of climate models. I am making the argument that global warming has not stopped because the oceans are still warming.

  288. richardscourtney says:
    August 4, 2014 at 4:38 am
    John Finn:

    re your silly post at August 4, 2014 at 2:53 am.

    We are discussing the fact that global warming has stopped.
    Ocean heat content is not relevant to the fact that global warming has stopped.

    How on earth can OHC not be relevant to “global” warming. Global warming happens when more energy enters the earth’s climate system than leaves it .The oceans are part of the earth’s climate system. The oceans which absorb more than 90% of incoming energy are warming. Therefore earth’s climate system is warming. Therefore global warming is still taking place.

  289. John Finn:

    At August 4, 2014 at 5:02 am you write

    I am making the argument that global warming has not stopped because the oceans are still warming.

    No, John Finn, you are not making an “argument”. You are making a daft assertion.

    Your daft assertion has no relation to reality because it requires replacement of the accepted definition of global warming with a redefinition which you wish to exist but does not.

    Global warming has stopped. Live with it.

    Richard

  290. dbstealey says:
    August 3, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    There is so much evidence supporting the existence of the LIA and the MWP that there is no credible argument to the contrary.

    Yes – so you keep saying and you’ve managed to provide us with some of this “much evidence” .in the form of a …. er …. painting.

  291. John Finn:

    I am replying to your astonishingly stupid post at August 4, 2014 at 5:13 am.

    I again – and for the third time in this thread – refer you to my post in this thread at August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am which is here.

    I yet again ask you to understand what global warming is. As that post explained

    Please consider {John Finn’s} daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.

    Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase in energy.

    Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
    That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.

    All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.

    John Finn, you do not get to unilaterally redefine global warming when you don’t like the fact that global warming has stopped.

    Richard

  292. Perhaps El Nino hasn’t caused a temperature increase because there is no El Nino. The ENSO meter at the bottom of the pages is precisely neutral as of today, and is falling back towards La Nina conditions without ever doing more than barely going into Nino territory for a few months, which doesn’t qualify, IIRC, as an El Nino event.

    It’s difficult for a non-existent even to cause anything at all.

    Of course the real moral of this story is that even with all of the satellite imagery and data from ARGO at their fingertips, the world’s greatest experts on weather, climate and El Nino itself (warmist and skeptic alike) put together were incapable of predicting the trajectory of the climate even after it looked like an El Nino was “inevitable” on the basis of conditions seen before in the paltry amount of past sea surface and other data prior to El Ninos. Predicting the future time evolution of a non-computable, nonlinear, chaotic, non-Markovian system of high dimensionality is (surprise) a hard problem, and the solutions proposed and conjectured might as well be coming off of a ouija board as from sober and properly cautious scientists.

    Indeed, comparison with a ouija board is quite apropos. The mechanics of answer selection is almost identical.

    rgb

  293. John Finn,
    “You are introducing a completely different argument, i.e. the validity of climate models. I am making the argument that global warming has not stopped because the oceans are still warming.”

    This is a new kind of warming then – warming without warming. Or to be more accurate, a greatly arrested form of warming, since a potential warming of 3 or 4C in the atmosphere is being constricted to a mere 0.1C in the oceans. That don’t sound so bad.

  294. Hurrah for Professor Brown! The climate is inherently unpredictable, but, like the profiteering prophets of previous dark ages, the profiteers of doom in the present age are doing their best to turn it into a dark age, not merely intellectually but also literally. Time to cut off their funding, and their electricity.

  295. “Global warming has stopped.”

    Well, it appears to also have stopped for other long periods in the 1900s, only to resume again. How do we know it won’t start again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

    “Climate sensitivity is less than 1 degree (C or F).”

    Someone asked for a simple argument refuting this. We’ve seen about 0.8 C warming over the past century, due to CO2 levels rising from about 300 to 400 ppm. For a doubling of CO2 (from 300 to 600 ppm), we would then expect a 2.4 C increase, assuming a linear relationship and no feedbacks. Since the feedbacks are so uncertain (as many point out here), why assume negative feedbacks which will keep temperatures steady? And why not be worried about positive feedbacks that will speed up warming?

  296. Mr Finn asks for evidence of the medieval warm period and of the little ice age. He may like to start with the 1200-year temperature reconstruction in Ljungqvist et al., then visit the medieval warm period database at co2science.org, where he will fund some 500 papers providing various forms of evidence for it in almost all parts of the world. For the little ice age, he can go to the central England temperature record and the historical records of the period on both sides of the Atlantic (which include paintings, for photography had not then been invented).

    There is also a very large amount of evidence that the attempt to abolish the medieval warm period and the little ice age was less than honest. Indeed, one of the scientists who evaluated that evidence and first published on the subject considers that criminal offenses had been committed. Since the fact of the medieval warm period and of the little ice age is so well established, it is for Mr Finn to produce some credible evidence that they did not occur, other than the spate of me-too modeling-based papers that suddenly appeared once the ridiculous “hokey-stick” graph had been demolished. It is the most-discredited artefact in the history of science, right up there with Piltdown Man.

    Like it or not, there is nothing unusual about today’s global temperatures, or about the rate of warming in the 20th century (there has been no warming since). Or, rather, there is one unusual thing. All other things being equal, one would have expected significant global warming to have occurred during the past decade and a half. But it has not occurred, notwithstanding the increases in CO2 concentration over the period. There appears, therefore, to be something wrong with the high-climate-sensitivity hypothesis, therefore.

    Mr Finn’s usual answer, that the oceans are still warming, is insufficient, because the oceans are warming at a minuscule rate (much as one would expect, given that they are 1000 times denser than the atmosphere, and their heat capacity is many thousands of times greater than that of the atmosphere. His argument that if the oceans are warming then the atmosphere must warm is actually correct. But, since the atmosphere is not warming, we must infer either that the oceans are not warming or that the heat has gone into hiding below the 2000 m depth to which the ARGO bathythermographs descend. But if it is hiding there, how do we know? For there are insufficient measurements even of the mixed stratum of the oceans: as for the benthic strata, they are barely measured at all. The notion that “the oceans are continuing to warm”, therefore, is shaky, to say the least: for, as Mr Finn has said, the atmosphere would warm too if the oceans were warming, but the atmosphere is not warming.

  297. Barry (August 4, 2014 at 6:41 am) “We’ve seen about 0.8 C warming over the past century, due to CO2 levels rising from about 300 to 400 ppm.”

    Neither part of your claim is correct. There is an alleged 0.8C warming based on inconsistent thermometer measurements. Natural temperature proxies generally show less than that rise.

    Second, that temperature rise was partly from manmade CO2 and partly from the ending of the Little Ice Age. Just the rise in solar irradiance of about 1W/m2 can explain 0.05C rise per 1C of climate sensitivity. That does not include the geomagnetic and spectral effects of increased solar activity which affect prevailing weather and therefore climate sensitivity. There is no reason to believe that climate sensitivity is constant as the earth warms, so further increases in retained energy from manmade CO2 are unlikely to cause the same or higher equilibrium temperature response.

  298. Barry:

    At August 4, 2014 at 6:41 am you write

    We’ve seen about 0.8 C warming over the past century, due to CO2 levels rising from about 300 to 400 ppm.

    Surely you intended to write the truth which is
    We’ve seen about 0.8 C of intermittent warming over the past century, while CO2 levels continuously rose from about 300 to 400 ppm and, therefore, it is not logical to assume the warming is directly due to the CO2 rise.

    Richard

  299. “Claptrap” says I am wrong to insist that those who deny that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. However, for good reason, those are indeed the site rules. “Claptrap” says it does not like calling the greenhouse effect the greenhouse effect because it is not a greenhouse effect. Well, that is what it is called, rightly or wrongly, and I am not interested in semantic quibbling.

    The point of the head posting was that there is a great and growing discrepancy between the global warming predicted by the models and the absence of global warming in the real world over the past decade and a half. That discrepancy arises not because there is no greenhouse effect but because the effect is small and may well be offset by net-negative feedbacks rather than amplified by net-positive ones. The true scientific debate about the climate centers on the magnitude and sign of the feedback sum, not on whether or not there is a greenhouse effect, nor on whether the greenhouse effect ought to be called a greenhouse effect.

  300. Kristian says

    I wasn’t making the argument the heat transfers from the atmosphere to the deep oceans I was just Stating the Technical argument in Roy Spencer’s post.

    This argument may or may not be true but the transfer stated in Roy’s post would be local and on a irrelevant scale for ocean warming or Global warming in general. in essence I agree with You.

    Sorry for the confusion.

  301. rgbatduke on August 4, 2014 at 5:50 am

    “. . . Predicting the future time evolution of a non-computable, nonlinear, chaotic, non-Markovian [climate] system of high dimensionality is (surprise) a hard problem, and the solutions proposed and conjectured might as well be coming off of a ouija board as from sober and properly cautious scientists.

    . . .”

    – – – – – – – –

    rgbatduke,

    You say “a hard problem” to predict the climate.

    I presume that you are not saying that it cannot eventually be done. Is my presumption of your position correct? If so what would the science community need to do / obtain to achieve a reasonable ability for prediction?

    John

  302. John Finn says

    “How on earth can OHC not be relevant to “global” warming. Global warming happens when more energy enters the earth’s climate system than leaves it .The oceans are part of the earth’s climate system. The oceans which absorb more than 90% of incoming energy are warming. Therefore earth’s climate system is warming. Therefore global warming is still taking place.”

    This is the whole point if the oceans are warming (as you say) and the atmosphere is not then something else is warming the oceans or the oceans aren’t warming at all!

    Even taking your early point as gospel (which few here do) the atmosphere would still have to warm in conjunction with the oceans though it may lag in response! There is no evidence that the oceans are warming and there IS evidence that the atmosphere is Not!

    If something else (i.e. the sun or geothermal activity) warmed the oceans you would expect to see a rise in global atmospheric temperatures, a lagging response increase in acidification of the oceans and a lagging response increase in atmospheric CO2. If the oceans started to cool you would see a lagging response in the opposite direction.

    This is what we have seen in the warming phase as we have come out of the “non-existent” LIA. The evidence is now that this process has stop or even reversed and as has the rise in temperatures.

  303. Ron House says, August 3, 2014 at 8:32 pm:

    “I do wish people would read the comments they reply to carefully before resorting to insults.”

    What insults? Ron, anyone reading my comment will see that there is nothing in there even remotely resembling any ad hominem attacks directed at you. Calm down, will you. This is a discussion thread. People tend to disagree. If you think I’ve misinterpreted what you said, then simply explain me how. No reason to go all pouty.

    “My meaning is this: Given the radiation profile of the planet into space, there is an effective temperature at each frequency, which is the temperature of the radiating layer at which photons at that layer first get a ‘free line of sight’ to outer space. (You admit this when you talk of “radiating layers”.) Photons from layers inside this layer are effectively absorbed by molecules in the layers above. The Stefan Boltzmann law tells us what the temperature of that radiating layer has to be, for a black body, and can be adjusted to account for non-black bodies. Thus the temperature at that layer is “determined” (get it?) by the physical fact that it wouldn’t be radiating at that level unless it had that temperature.”

    I’ve read this paragraph a couple of times now, and again I have to submit that you seem to have it all turned on its head. The physical temperature at any specific layer of air from the surface to the tropopause is determined by the surface temperature and the lapse rate climbing up from the surface through the tropospheric column, not by the radiation it ‘needs’ to emit. The emission comes after. The temperature is set first. Then the radiation. The radiative profile from the Earth to space is a result of the energy > temperature distribution of the Earth system. And the process maintaining this distribution (after the surface absorption of the solar input) is convection. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t tell us anything about what the temperature of each radiating layer ‘needs’ to be. The temperature is already known. Determined by the surface temp, by the lapse rate and by convection. Thermal radiation in the troposphere is a result of temperature, not a cause of it.

    If you do in fact agree to this, then I have misunderstood you and in that case, I apologise.

    “Next, given what we calculate the temperature must be at a certain height, we can calculate the maximum value it can be at the surface, because any gas at a temperature higher than that determined by the adiabatic compression of a parcel of gas descending from the upper layer to the lower one will be less dense than the gas at the temperature calculated from adiabatic compression. Being less dense, it will rise and the atmosphere will convect.

    In none of this do I consider or assert which “end” of the system is driving the other. If I wanted to talk about that, I would use words like “cause” (meaning a physical process), not words like “determine”, which refer to fact-finding and drawing of conclusions.”

    That’s fine. But then I don’t get your wording. Because the way you describe the ‘process’ very much give me the impression that you think – like the climate establishment – that the ‘atmospheric radiative GHE’ exists because the presence of the radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, like H2O and CO2, somehow forces the final radiative flux from Earth to space (239 W/m^2) to originate from somewhere high in the atmosphere where it’s cool (255K) rather than from the surface, and that the lapse rate moving down from this ‘determined’ temperature level will do the rest of the job – raising the surface temp to 288K. The whole ‘lifting the effective emission height’ charade.

    Please tell me I’ve misinterpreted you.

    “And your discussion of the mechanical aspects of it is pretty much correct and contradicts nothing I said, so your snide put-downs are neither required nor justified. Keep them to yourself and try to be civil in future.”

    Again, Ron, in what way was I not ‘civil’? And where exactly do you find my ‘snide put-downs’?

  304. Bob Boder says, August 4, 2014 at 7:42 am:

    “This argument may or may not be true but the transfer stated in Roy’s post would be local and on a irrelevant scale for ocean warming or Global warming in general. in essence I agree with You.”

    Good to hear. Yes, whenever the air has a higher temperature than the sea surface below, the heat transfer will indeed be from atmosphere to ocean. Normally, you’ll have fog.

    But this situation is quite irrelevant to global averages which is what ‘global warming’ is supposed to be about. We still don’t see global tropospheric/surface temperatures rising while the bulk ocean temperature allegedly is. The suggested AGW mechanism for warming is simply absent …

  305. Barry says:
    August 4, 2014 at 6:41 am

    1. In reality temperature hasn’t gained that much since 1900.

    2. Only a minor part of the real gain is from higher CO2 levels.

    3. The GHG effect is not linear but logarithmic. If a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm produces a one degree C increase in GASTA, then most of that gain would already have occurred.

  306. John Finn says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:02 am

    That adjustments to temperature records are corrupt was obvious even before Climategate. Jones & Hansen have been forced to make public their secret algorithms, which show that indeed they adjust for the UHI by making the actual readings hotter, & Jones has admitted that he raises ocean T readings to bring them into line with his rigged land station “data”. For starters. You need to educate yourself before commenting.

    Which goes double if you imagine yourself a student of the CET yet have never seen Lamb’s work. I found it ludicrous that you imagined there was no LIA in the CET data, since Lamb used them & his reconstruction to demonstrate both the LIA & the Medieval Warm Period. How could you have missed reading the works of the scientist who founded the CRU at East Anglia?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb

    Tony Brown writes on this & other blogs often.

    Do you like humiliating yourself in public?

  307. Moving the goal posts at both ends?

    Apparently we can’t link images here, or I don’t know how, but examine these two images carefully. This link is the 17 years, 10 months image from above.

    Next is the 13 years, 4 months image from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/temperature-analysis-of-5-datasets-shows-the-great-pause-has-endured-for-13-years-4-months/

    Both show nice flat lines with a trend of zero. Both also show very different values in the Y axis for the trend line. WUWT?

    Finally, some months ago the record was at 17 years, 9 months as seen here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming/

    It’s taken since April to go from 17 years, 9 months to 17 years, 10 months in July, but at least the temperature hasn’t changed noticeably over that period.

    This probably needs explaining before someone becomes confused. Or is it too late? :)

  308. Why was it obvious, you might ask, before Climategate?

    To mention but two reasons, because of the blatant attempt to “get rid of the MWP” & because of the plainly visible retroactive cooling of older T records & boosting warming in the surface “record” as much as the watching satellites would allow, among others.

  309. dp says:
    August 4, 2014 at 10:18 am
    It’s taken since April to go from 17 years, 9 months to 17 years, 10 months in July, but at least the temperature hasn’t changed noticeably over that period.
    This probably needs explaining before someone becomes confused. Or is it too late? :)

    The two most important numbers are the zero line for the data set and the latest anomaly. At the moment, the zero line is at 0.235. However all anomalies since April have been above this. So if the new anomalies are as much above the zero line as the other end is below the zero line, then the pause could stay at 17 years and 10 months for another year. In other words, when it hits the spike. Should the anomaly be high when the spike is hit, then there could be a sudden decrease of three years in the length of the pause. Exactly that happened with Hadcrut3 a few months ago.

  310. rgbatduke on August 4, 2014 at 5:50 am

    “. . . Predicting the future time evolution of a non-computable, nonlinear, chaotic, non-Markovian [climate] system of high dimensionality is (surprise) a hard problem, and the solutions proposed and conjectured might as well be coming off of a ouija board as from sober and properly cautious scientists.”
    It is not only a hard problem – it is impossible if you try to compute it from the bottom up.
    The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:

    Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is
    much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio.
    The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables to build an understanding and narrative of general trends and patterns from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. The value of the geologists’ approach to understanding the past is proven by the trillions of dollars spent by the oil companies to find and produce the millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of gas needed daily to fuel the world economy. It works!
    Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
    a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles which are modulated by
    b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
    The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
    After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities, to help forecast decadal and annual changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.
    In addition to these quasi-periodic processes we must also be aware of endogenous earth changes in geomagnetic field strength, volcanic activity and at really long time scales the plate tectonic movements and disposition of the land masses.
    For forecasts of the coming cooling based on these general principles and chiefly on the 60 and 970 year periodicities in the temperature data see

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

  311. Figure 1: The horizontal axis has been cropped off.
    Should show ‘YEARS’ from 1997 to present.

  312. So if the new anomalies are as much above the zero line as the other end is below the zero line, then the pause could stay at 17 years and 10 months for another year.

    I understand how it works and after seeing a few examples some oddities popped out. How meaningful is a pause that pauses for a year? Would it not be more accurate to say the pause has ended, or at least has been interrupted and then show the interruptions? A record that depends upon freezing time within the period of the record only to steamroll through it when the math works again seems a bit odd. How is it different than a chain of pauses interspersed with out of band data? Why does one chart begin in October and another begin in August? To put it another way, if one were to plot the pause incrementing by month beginning at October 1998 to present you will see dozens of pauses, none of which would necessarily have the same value for the trend line anomaly. How is it a continuous pause if the zero trend line at 13 years 4 months is 0.2º different than the 17 year 9 month zero trend line?

    I’ll repeat my earlier question – how is this different than cherry picking? I’m glad there’s a pause but I’m not too impressed with the evolution of it.

  313. “dp” makes thing pointlessly complicated. The question I ask each month is how far back from the present can one go without showing any global warming. Since this is an el Nino year, it is no surprise that the pause is not lengthening. However, when the la Nina sets in, the pause may well lengthen again.

    “dp” should not, however, concentrate only on the graph that shows the length of the pause. THere are two other graphs that show the discrepancy between the predictions of the models and the outturn in real life.

    Of course the pause has upset many who had hoped that the mad official predictions might come true. But it remains startling that a decade and a half without warming can occur at a time when record amounts of CO2 are being added to the atmosphere. So let us not argue about angels on pinheads. Starting in October 1996, there has been no global warming for 17 years 10 months according to RSS. Starting in September 1996, there has been warming at a rate equivalent to – wait for it – 0.01 Celsius degrees per century. Not much difference, really.

  314. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Since when in the two satellite data series has there been cooling, whether statistically significant or not?

    Thanks.

    If the PDO entered its warm phase in 1977, as my vivid memories of weather that year suggest to me that it did, with a vengeance, then the cool phase should have started around 2006, give or take a year or two.

  315. In answer to Milondonharlani, there was cooling in the first seven or eight years of the 21st century. The great climate shift that marked the abrupt beginning of the PDO’s warm phase was in 1976. It was a very hot summer in the UK. Even in Yorkshire, the grass went as brown as Cyprus, and the then Socialist government eventually appointed a minister for drought (whereupon the Gore Effect took hold and massive thunderstorms broke the drought).

    The warm phase ended somewhere between 1998 and 2003 – hard to be exact, because in the index there was a lot of jiggling up and down for several years. But we’re in what should be the cooling phase now: yet temperature has really not changed since the current cooling phase began, suggesting the possibility that at the moment the weak signal from CO2 may be just enough to prevent the slight fall in temperature that might otherwise be happening.

    But all the trends are so small that one can’t draw any definite conclusions, except that the world is certainly not warming anything like as fast as predicted.

  316. richardscourtney says:
    August 4, 2014 at 5:27 am
    John Finn:

    I am replying to your astonishingly stupid post at August 4, 2014 at 5:13 am.

    I am now replying to you ignorant and ill-informed at August 4, 2014 at 5:27 am. I shall try to be patient, Richard, since it’s my experience that those who resort to labelling others as stupid generally suffer from a lack of understanding of the issues involved.

    First, let’s looks at this WUWT post

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/09/even-more-about-trenberths-missing-heat-an-eye-opening-comment-by-roger-pielke-sr/

    which includes this statement by Roger Pielke

    1. The recognition that ocean heat content changes can be used to diagnose the global radiative imbalance in Watts per meter squared, that I discussed in my paper

    Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf

    is applied in the Balmaseda et al 2013 paper. This, as I reported in my Physics Today article, is the much more robust approach to assess global warming and cooling, than using the global annual average surface temperature trend

    Ok – got that, Richard. It is well recognised, that, by far, the best indicator of global warming (or cooling) is OHC. There is no debate or disagreement about it. If the oceans are warming then it’s pretty much a certainty that the earth is gaining energy. Now, I’m not too bothered about ‘your’ definition of global warming. If the oceans continue to warm then ultimately the surface and atmosphere will resume warming. If you don’t accept that then you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the physics involved. If you ask nicely I might just give you a little tutorial on how it all works

  317. dp says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    There are different ways to show what is happening. Two of the most common are to find the maximum length of time for which the slope is zero. The other is to show where warming is not significant at the 95% level. If you start at the latest date and go back as far as you can to find a slope of 0 or to find where the CI is negative for the first number, that is not cherry picking. If you set the ground rules a certain way, and give them Nick Stokes’ site here: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
    they will give the same answer, regardless what their predisposition may be.
    NOAA has certain things to say about the 95% and 15 years, so if there is no warming for over 17 years, the models are more than falsified. It does not matter if the 17 years and 10 months lasts a year. The really important thing as far as climate science is concerned is that there is statistically significant warming over a period of less than 15 years. And this is not the case on any data set.

  318. “… But we’re in what should be the cooling phase now: yet temperature has really not changed since the current cooling phase began, suggesting the possibility that at the moment the weak signal from CO2 may be just enough to prevent the slight fall in temperature that might otherwise be happening. …” ~ C. Monckton

    And it is also very possible that we are, indeed, in a cooling phase and “adjustments”, infilling, zombie stations, and other data manipulations are hiding the decline. Imagine what would be going on now if we had 10 years of decline on the record. Just imagine.

  319. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    The AMO & PDO might be half a year or a year out of synch. Plus, phase transition intervals might look like plateaus. We’ll see if the warming “pause” is a pause or a plateau. There’s also the question of data reliability, even with the satellites.

    On the fundamental points we are in agreement: 1) net warming from human activities (if any) is slight & so far beneficial, as indeed is an increase in CO2 from c. 300 to 400 ppm (& beyond), & 2) that the CO2-reliant GCMs have failed miserably to predict climatic change & thus are worse than worthless bases upon which to formulate national or global policy.

  320. milodonharlani says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Since when in the two satellite data series has there been cooling, whether statistically significant or not?

    There has been cooling since February 2001. For RSS, the slope is -0.591/cent and for UAH it is +0.506/cent. So the negative slope is larger than the positive slope.

  321. milodonharlani says:
    August 4, 2014 at 10:16 am

    In this post

    milodonharlani says:
    August 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    You wrote

    Not laughable at all. Adjustments since the 1980s have been intentionally corrupted with bias. Reconstructions before 1700 were done in good faith by a real scientist, Dr. Lamb, without an agenda.

    Let’s just repeat that last sentence in BOLD

    Reconstructions before 1700 were done in good faith by a real scientist, Dr. Lamb, without an agenda.

    Knowing that Lamb had very little to do with CET reconstructions, I responded with

    Now I might really learn something new. Do tell us about Hubert Lamb’s CET reconstructions.

    Instead of issuing an embarrassed apology as you should have, you then imply that the error was mine. It’s like arguing with a 5 year old.

    Gordon Manley reconstructed the CET record, by the way. I know exactly who Hubert Lamb was and what he wrote about the LIA.

  322. John Finn . You seem to have missed or disregarded my previous comments on OHC.Here are some excerpts,
    Justaskin There is a variable delay ( 12 – 20 years) between the solar activity driver and the ocean SSTs and Total OHC response. For the total OHC see Fig 18 from Wunsch et al at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/deep-oceans-are-cooling-amidst-a-sea-of-modeling-uncertainty-new-research-on-ocean-heat-content/

    This shows OHC peaked about 2009.
    SSTs peaked about 2003 see FIg 17 at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    Here’s a quote from the same post – check Figs 13 and 14.
    ” Lockwood et al 2014 in press say in their abstract at http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2009/Lockwood_ApJ_openflux_F1.pdf
    “Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar
    activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when
    25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV.”

    Be sure to check the Global OHC in the Wunsch Fig 18
    Second quote:
    August 2, 2014 at 2:35 pm
    John Finn Re Oceans – see my 12:36pm post above also note the excellent work of Lyman and Johnson. Their latest compilation of the trends in OHC shows that the oceans are cooling from the top down as we might expect on a world which is just entering a cooling trend. see table 1 at

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf

    Quote
    “Table 1.
    Warming reported as heat flux applied to Earth’s entire surface area (in W m-2) corresponding to trends in annual REP OHCA estimates from unweighted linear fits from benchmark years through 2011 for different depths of integration (left column).
    A benchmark year is defined as the year in which sampling coverage all layers being considered first exceeds 50%, and remains > 50% thereafter. Layer warming trends over time periods during which coverage in a layer is < 50% in any year, indicated here by a dash, are not reported.
    Time Period 1956–2011 1967–2011 1983–2011 2004–2011
    Depth Layer 0–100 m 0.06 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.01 W m-2
    0–300 m 0.18 W m-2 0.24 W m-2 0.19 W m-2
    0–700 m – – 0.46 W m-2 0.30 W m-2
    0–1800 m – – – 0.56 W m-2

    You will note that the heat flux in the 0-100 m level declined almost 90% when the period 1983-2011 is compared with 2004-11
    Large declines between these periods are also seen when the same time periods are compared for 0-300 and 0-700m.
    These numbers show that Trenberth's idea of the missing heat going into the oceans is fanciful.
    It is time to recognize that the output of the IPCC models is useless for forecasting purposes.
    For forecasts of the possible coming cooling based on the natural quasi periodicities seen in the temperature data see several posts at

    http://climatesense-norpg.blogspot.com

  323. John Finn says:
    August 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Lamb used CET reconstructions to demonstrate the LIA & MWP, so how is it that you claim there is no sign of those periods in the CET data?

    I can’t argue with a serial liar who keeps changing his position & refuses to recognize reality.

  324. Werner Brozek says:
    August 4, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    Good to know. Thanks.

    The differences between RSS & UAH have often been noted here.

    Maybe the failed El Niño will move UAH down to join RSS in showing global cooling for this century.

  325. Mr Finn is not doing himself or his cause any favors. Best to accept that global warming is not happening at the predicted rate, and that in any event two-thirds of the past 11,400 years were warmer than the present. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about today’s temperatures, or about the rate of change at the end of the past century.

    The correct deduction from these facts is that our adding CO2 to the air is not making much difference. Theory suggests that it will have made some difference, but on balance probably not very much. The models were wrong.They exaggerated. They are still exaggerating. Few now believe them.

  326. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    At least two of the past four interglacials were also warmer than even the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which ended about 5000 years ago. The Modern Warm Period still hasn’t produced a 50 year interval warmer than the Medieval Warm Period’s hottest century or two, & probably won’t, even with benefit of more CO2, since the Roman WP was warmer than the Medieval, the Minoan warmer than the Roman & the Optimum warmer than the Minoan. Mr. Finn would also be well advised to recognize the reality of the LIA, the Medieval WP, the Dark Ages Cold Period, Roman WP, the Greek Dark Ages CP, the Minoan & other WPs, other CPs & the HCO in the proxy data records for this interglacial & similar cycles in previous ones.

    The long-term trend at least for the past 3300 years, if not 5000, is down, to which line earth’s climate will regress after the current warm period ends. The 30 years after the mid-1970s are truly nothing about which to write home, let alone over which to worry.

  327. milodonharlani says:
    August 4, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Lamb used CET reconstructions to demonstrate the LIA & MWP, so how is it that you claim there is no sign of those periods in the CET data?

    I can’t argue with a serial liar who keeps changing his position & refuses to recognize reality.

    He couldn’t possibly use the CET to demonstrate the MWP. But in any case, I’ve already calculated the century trends for you. They are FLAT. That’s what the CET data says.

    Why don’t you get your friend, the ‘CET expert’, Tony Brown to calculate the 1700-1800 and 1800-1900 temperature trends and confirm them for you.

    Here’s a graph of CET from 1772

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    Take a good look at it. There are periodic fluctuations (i.e. peaks and troughs) but no trend up to about 1940. The fluctuations are probably the result of Atlantic oscillations – there’s certainly no obvious solar signal. There is not a significant departure from the general pattern until the second half of the 20th century.

  328. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm
    Mr Finn is not doing himself or his cause any favors. Best to accept that global warming is not happening at the predicted rate

    Hang on a minute. There is a difference between “not happening” and “not happening at the predicted rate”. I’ve stated a number of times that I don’t think global warming will be a problem but I’m not going to deny it’s still happening when the evidence says otherwise.

  329. John Finn (August 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm) “Hang on a minute. There is a difference between “not happening” and “not happening at the predicted rate”…”

    It is only trolls that claim manmade global warming is not happening and they are of two types: one that will come out and say that in threads like this and the second type who will quote the first type or put words in the mouth of people who never said it.

    You can stop arguing your incorrect point about ocean warming when the ocean warming is natural (solar). Perhaps you meant to say less ocean heat transfer to the atmosphere due to a warmer atmosphere. But that would also be incorrect since ocean heat transfer to the atmosphere is a function of average weather including long time scale oceanic weather, and not a function of the slight warming of the atmosphere from CO2.

    In short, we don’t need to hear your red herrings about the “difference” when nobody except trolls said “not happening”.

  330. John Finn says:
    August 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    I’ve repeatedly showed you that the century trends mask the 30 year fluctuations.

    I’ve also repeatedly showed you that Lamb used the CET reconstructions back to 850 IIRC to demonstrate the MWP & the LIA, for which he also of course had thermometer data.

    There most certainly is a solar signal. It was colder during the Spoerer, Maunder & Dalton Minima than during the intervals between them. If you don’t want to recognize reality, that’s your problem.

    There is no point in continuing to mud wrestle a pig. I get dirty & the pig enjoys it.

  331. But wait a minute. I just realized I made the mistake of not recalling that you’re a blatant liar.

    In fact, the century data do show the LIA. Using your own years: average for 1700 in CET was 8.57 degrees C, 1800 was 9.23 C & 1900 9.56. But you still haven’t bothered to check the more meaningful intervals, which are the 30 & 60 year averages during the LIA & the Modern Warm Period, which are dispositive, as I repeatedly showed you. Of course you then claimed that the pre-1700 data weren’t good enough & ignored my demonstration using the ’90s of each century.

    You’re a hopeless case.

  332. Werner Brozek says:
    August 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    dp says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    There are different ways to show what is happening. Two of the most common are to find the maximum length of time for which the slope is zero. The other is to show where warming is not significant at the 95% level.

    Do you think it is possible that a person could choose an end point and crawl backward in time to about the same start time as used in the 17 year 10 month chart to demonstrate a positive trend of some significance also exists? The method would be identical, but the result sought would be to reveal a positive trend equal to or longer than the zero trend. If a person were to publish that chart do you not think it would be appropriate to suspect cherry picking? Could that chart be used in any important way relevant to Lord Monckton’s chart? Using the same approximate data range, is one chart showing a positive (or negative) trend more or less valuable than the one showing a zero trend for that matter?

    I will just add here that I am a big fan of Monckton of Brenchley and have been for years. I’m not criticizing his work – I am trying to resolve the conflict I have that comes from a non-trivial look at several examples of zero trend charts and how they have been presented. By example, a recent chart provided a zero trend for 17 years 9 months. We now have 17 years 10 months, and a non-critical observer may/will presume the latter is a continuation of the former when in fact they have no relationship to one another as a result of having different end points. I understand completely what the stated objective is but it is the serial presentation of new charts that imply a relationship with earlier charts where there is none, and where the zero trend line can and will fall on very different anomaly values as new charts are created. It is therefore a mistake to attempt to compare these charts over time, and, to think that within the data set only one exploitable trend exists.

    To those for whom it matters, my name is Dennis and has been for 68 years. My on-line signature “dp” is about half that age (just did the math and it is now 40 years old) and has been used consistently and reliably in all that time. Owing to the industry I am self-employed in it is of value to me and my customers that I tread carefully with my full ID. Anthony has my blessing to provide privately my email address to Lord Monckton or any other guest author who seeks to communicate with me off line. I am, however, remarkably unremarkable.

  333. dp says:
    August 4, 2014 at 9:14 pm
    Do you think it is possible that a person could choose an end point and crawl backward in time to about the same start time as used in the 17 year 10 month chart to demonstrate a positive trend of some significance also exists?

    You say “of some significance”. If I take this to mean statistically significant at the 95% level that climate scientists like, then we would have to go back to November 1992 or 21 years and 9 months according to:

    http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

    A different calculation here pushes this date even further back a few more years:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    But having said this, any time greater than 17 years and 10 months gives a positive slope, although it would be extremely small, especially if the time is not much larger.
    However the point in giving these numbers is to show that the models are wrong if the time for a slope of zero is more than 15 years (Jones) or 17 years (Santer). So the greater the time for a slope of zero, the worse the climate models look.
    And of course 21 years and 9 months is more than 15 years (NOAA), so that would be another way to show the climate models are wrong.

    It is therefore a mistake to attempt to compare these charts over time,

    I do not see it as a mistake. If the time increases, the models look worse. And should the time decrease, the models still look bad providing there is no statistically significant warming for less than 15 years. And keep in mind that WUWT gets many new readers each day, so there could be many who see these monthly updates for the first time each month.

  334. Regarding:

    “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.”
    _________________________________

    I suspect that ‘factoid’ may be a little out of date. In the Central England Temperature series (CET), the 100 year period 1663-1762 warmed at a rate of 0.86C/century. The warmest 100 year periods in CET were slightly higher; both 1908-2007 and 1909-2008 warmed at a rate of 0.87C/century: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html

    There’s a chance this joint record could be beaten in 2014. CET Jan-Jul 2014 is the warmest ‘year-to-date’ on record since 1659. If monthly temperatures in CET between August and December remain around the 1961-90 average, then the warming rate over the 100 year period 1915-2014 will be +0.91; setting a new record for CET.

  335. milodonharlani says:
    August 4, 2014 at 6:09 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    I’ve repeatedly showed you that the century trends mask the 30 year fluctuations.

    The 19th century fluctuations are cyclical. They effectively return to the origin. The 19th century temperatures are trendless over time. Let me repeat that for you. in bold type.

    The 19th century temperature trend was flat. It was as close to ZERO as makes no difference

    Now email Tony Brown.and let him know what I’ve written. If he wants to argue the case then – fine I’ll respond to him, but you are simply too ill-equipped to grasp the basics.

    I’ve also repeatedly showed you that Lamb used the CET reconstructions back to 850 IIRC to demonstrate the MWP & the LIA, for which he also of course had thermometer data.

    There are no CET reconstructions back to 850. You have no idea what you’re on about.

  336. milodonharlani says:
    August 4, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    But wait a minute. I just realized I made the mistake of not recalling that you’re a blatant liar.

    In fact, the century data do show the LIA. Using your own years: average for 1700 in CET was 8.57 degrees C, 1800 was 9.23 C & 1900 9.56.

    Oh, for crying out loud, you’ve used the mean values for just ONE year. You really don’ have a clue do you? Why don’t you include the 2010 average of 8.83 degrees and we can conclude that it’s colder now than during the LIA.

    Look – you need to familiarise yourself with Least Squares Linear Regression. The author of this post (Christopher Monckton) makes a mention of this. It is the well-recognised procedure for determining temperature trends over given periods.

    PS can you point me in the direction of those CET Reconstructions back to 850 AD. I could do with a laugh.

  337. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 4, 2014 at 7:31 am
    “Claptrap” says I am wrong to insist that those who deny that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. However, for good reason, those are indeed the site rules. “Claptrap” says it does not like calling the greenhouse effect the greenhouse effect because it is not a greenhouse effect. Well, that is what it is called, rightly or wrongly, and I am not interested in semantic quibbling.

    Was that what I said? I think not Lord Monckton, you have paraphrased my remarks in such a way as to create a straw man fallacy. It is easy for readers to check what I actually stated in the posting, but let me just quote the relevant passage.

    quote —–
    What I have consistently argued in these pages in this article, is that
    there may be some effect of warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, caused
    by the effect you and others have described, but I said that
    1. it is trivial, and
    2. it is NOT a “greenhouse effect”, because the Earth’s
    atmosphere is not comparable to a greenhouse.

    I further assert that the moniker “Greenhouse Effect”, continues to
    be used erroneously in that regard, and deliberately to confuse the
    real issue here. which might be described as for instance molecular
    Quantum transfer warming, or a host of other less befuddling terms.

    The thing is you see, that there is a real thing called the “Greenhouse
    Effect”, and it relates to actual greenhouses, and similar constructions,
    like an automobile, or a tramcar, or even a glass fronted office block.
    The use of the term in a slang fashion, to describe the actions of the
    Earth’s atmosphere is entirely inappropriate, and the cause of very
    many specious arguments and false dichotomies among debaters
    who essentially hold the same point of view.

    That’s fairly clear then isn’t it?

    again, in case anybody missed it —–
    The thing is you see, that there is a real thing called the “Greenhouse
    Effect”, and it relates to actual greenhouses, and similar constructions

    How that can be construed as a denial of the greenhouse effect is baffling.

    Lord Monckton admits that —–
    that is what it is called, rightly or wrongly,

    Well at least that is some progress then, Lord Monckton recognises that the term “greenhouse effect” may not be correctly applied to these atmospheric phenomena which we do see, can measure, and that I do not deny such effects may exist. What I say is that they are trivial, and that they are not due to the blockage of heat transference via convection.

    Lord Monckton continues ——
    I am not interested in semantic quibbling

    Well semantics is the study of language, but quibbling, really? Quibbling is defined as, “Evading the truth of a point or question by raising irrelevant objections”. So then lest get this straight, because it is important. Language is all that we have to describe and communicate ideas and hypotheses.

    What I have stated is that there is a Real Greenhouse Effect as it applies to actual greenhouses and similar constructions, but that this isn’t what is going on in the atmosphere. Furthermore I point out the dangers in using this same nomenclature for a quite different effect which we have observed in the atmosphere of the planet Earth. I suggest that this confusion causes a false dichotomy among supporters of Lord Monckton, and his otherwise laudable hypotheses on the long pause, hiatus, lack of warming, during the last two decades or so. I suggest that we out to use proper scientific terms to describe the effects we see, and can empirically measure.

    For instance, if a photon had by some method, involving quantum physics, been absorbed by a molecule of CO2, or indeed CH4, or even H2O, which then caused it to rise in temperature, and then re-radiated to describe that for that. It is lazy semantics to use a slang term like “greenhouse effect” for that process, and it saves an author of a piece having to do the actual research to use the proper scientific terms. As a result it then makes it difficult for others to repeat those measurements, if indeed any were carried out, because we do not know what precise mechanism is claimed for this process, as it is not adequately described by the slang term and misnomer “greenhouse effect”.

    How would it be if a nuclear physicist in describing the construction of a new electricity power station, when applying for funding, or reassuring the public stated merely that, for example.

    “We have a big lead box which we will throw in some uranium, and then it heats up, so we put a big boiler on the top, just like in your house and then the steam drives an electric turbine, so there’s no danger in that then, and by the way can we have eleven billion of your pounds sterling please, oh and it will take ten years to build it, if you want details that’s just semantic quibbling.”
    Whilst that description is essentially true, it isn’t quite precise enough is it?
    Semantics, is not a dirty word.
    “Quibbling” is a pejorative accusative, which again
    is I think, beneath your dignity, Lord Monckton.

    Still I support Lord Monckton’s hypotheses about the models disagreeing with observations, and this is the important point of this article, the digression into the semantics of the descriptions of molecular quantum energy transfer effects, was interesting, but diversionary, and perhaps that should have had a separate article. May we look forward to such a discussion in these pages?

    Who among us in these pages feels qualified to write such an article, and can we please use appropriate scientific terms, and steer away from slang and other perplexing befuddlement.

    Really it isn’t a question of what I’d like or not, instead
    it is a question of what’s transparently correct or not.

    Thank you.

  338. eric1skeptic says:
    August 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    You can stop arguing your incorrect point about ocean warming when the ocean warming is natural (solar).

    You’ll need to elaborate. Ocean heating is almost entirely due to Solar energy. However for the oceans to retain more heat one of 3 things must be happening.

    (i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
    (ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
    (iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.

    Between 2005 and 2012 ARGO reports a 7×10^22 joules per decade increase. Which of the the 3 scenarios above are you suggesting is responsible?

  339. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 7:03 am

    (i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
    (ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
    (iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.

    i) possibly
    ii) possibly
    iii) possibly some effect (leaving aside my well known views on the semantics)
    but you miss out
    iv) increased tectonic / volcanic activity

    eg:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/08/study-plate-tectonics-modulates-volcanic-activity-which-in-turn-modulates-climate-forcings/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/

    There are many more such discussions at this blog here (WUWT),
    let alone the scores of papers in the peer reviewed literature.

    We cannot ignore the role of the fact that the vast mass of this planet
    is still very hot, and that this heat penetrates most where the Earth’s
    crust is thinnest, ie. the floor of the oceans.

  340. John Finn says

    How in gods name can a increase in greenhouse effect reduce the rate of ocean cooling without the atmosphere warming? Over and over again you make the point, the oceans warming has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. It is the oceans warming that caused the atmospheric warming not the other way around and you are providing the evidence of this every time you post!

    Wake up

  341. John Finn

    Go into your bathroom and fill your tub, check the temperature in the room. Then add hot water to your tub and check the temperature again.

    Now fill your tub again and check its temperature
    , then raise the heat in the room by 5 degrees and check your tubs temperature again. Wait as long as you want on this on.

  342. John Finn (August 5, 2014 at 7:03 am) “You’ll need to elaborate. Ocean heating is almost entirely due to Solar energy. However for the oceans to retain more heat one of 3 things must be happening.
    (i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
    (ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
    (iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.
    Between 2005 and 2012 ARGO reports a 7×10^22 joules per decade increase. Which of the the 3 scenarios above are you suggesting is responsible?”

    #1: not a factor, solar decreased over that interval.
    #2: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
    #3 is also a factor but not the dominant one since there are other global variables involved. The rate of cooling (heat transfer to the atmosphere) is dependent on wind and waves at the water surface. Also ocean currents will sequester more or less heat deeper in the oceans.

    You might also consider that you are comparing ARGO in 2005 with almost zero coverage of the deep oceans with 2012 which had barely adequate coverage. Thus the trend results from infilling data using a climate model, not from actual measurements.

  343. Bob Boder says:
    August 5, 2014 at 7:55 am
    ………..bathroom analogy
    ___________________________

    I say Now fill your (metal) bathtub, and then stick a dirty great
    gas burner underneath it (volcano simulator), and bubble the exhaust
    gasses through the water. Then measure the water and air temperature
    after a while. Both will have heated. Measure the CO2, and it will have
    increased too, in the water and the air. There will be more CO2 in the
    water, than is in the air. Throw in some volcanic rocks to buffer the
    ph of the bathwater. It’s a reasonable model. Can I have a few
    million dollars “CO2 research grant” please?

  344. You say “of some significance”.

    I mean political significance. There is nothing important about science in the political debate around climate change. The question of how this isn’t cherry picking is yet artfully unanswered. The very method is a demonstration of seeking ideal endpoints to create a desired trend. When this is done to show warming it is soundly ridiculed for what it is. In the case of identifying the longest possible span of time that reveals a zero trend it is clearly necessary allow the method to determine one end point. The result is a useful political tool, in fact. But if a warmist asks me if the zero trend is an example of cherry picking I will have to agree it is. And I can also explain why it can’t be helped. The zero trend is a useful tool with a regrettable means of generation. I would also argue that the zero trend is a necessary tool in the blood sport of climate debate.

  345. If the plot had been done using today’s method in 1930 instead of 2014 it apparently would not have been considered cherry picking.

  346. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 6:51 am

    Your ignorance is astounding. You obviously never read Lamb’s seminal book. Here are his data:

    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/stgeorge/geog5426/Lamb%20Palaeogeography%20Palaeoclimatology%20Palaeoecology%201965.pdf

    96 AD 800-1000
    97- 98 1000-1100
    98-100 1100-1150
    100-106 1150-1200
    100-104 1200-1250
    100-106 1250-1300
    98-101 1300-1350
    97- 98 1350-1400
    95 1400-1450
    95 1450-1500
    97 1500-1550
    93- 94 1550-1600
    93- 94 1600-1650
    92- 93 1650-1700 a
    96- 97 1700-1750 a
    94 1750-1800
    96 1800-1850
    97 1850-1900
    99 1900-1950

    Even you should be able to detect the difference in average temperatures during the MWP (c. AD 800 to 1400) from the LIA (c. 1400 to 1850).

  347. Oops. I accidentally posted rainfall rather than T. The last number in this series is the annual average T in degrees C (others are seasonal). Interesting that the MWP & LIA show up in precipitation data, too, though:

    800-1000 3.5 3.5 15.9 15.9 9.2
    1000-1 I00 3.7 3.7 (16.2) 16.2 9.4
    1100-1150 3.5 3.5 (16.2) 16.5 9.6
    1150-1200 3.9 4.2 (16.3) 16.7 10.2
    1200-1250 3.8 4.1 (16.3) 16.7 10.1
    1250-1300 3.9 4.2 (16.3) 16.7 10.2
    1300-1350 3.6 3.8 15.9 16.2 9.8
    1350-1400 3.6 3.8 15.7 15.9 9.5
    1400-1450 3.4 3.4 15.8 15.8 9.1
    1450-1500 3.5 3.5 15.6 15.6 9.0
    1500-1550~ 3.8 3.8 15.9 15.9 9.3
    1550-1600 3.2 3.2 (15.3) 15.3 8.8
    1600-1650 3.2 3.2 (15.4) 15.4 8.8
    1650-1700 a 3.1 3.1 (15.3) 15.3 8.7
    1700-17508 3.7 3.7 15.9 15.9 9.24
    1750-1800 3.4 3.4 15.9 15.9 9.06
    1800-1850 3.5 3.5 15.6 15.6 9.12
    1850-1900 3.8 3.8 15.7 15.7 9.12
    1900-1950 4.2 4.2 15.8 15.8 9.41

  348. John Finn says, August 5, 2014 at 7:03 am:

    “Ocean heating is almost entirely due to Solar energy. However for the oceans to retain more heat one of 3 things must be happening.

    (i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
    (ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
    (iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.

    Between 2005 and 2012 ARGO reports a 7×10^22 joules per decade increase. Which of the the 3 scenarios above are you suggesting is responsible?”

    (ii) Because of a preponderance towards the end of the period of La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

    Other than that, you forgot the one mechanism that is probably more important than any other (maybe with the exception of just changing cloud cover):

    (iv) Reduced winds over the tropical ocean slows mean evaporation rates.

    This is what in fact happened in 1976/77 when SOI all of a sudden dropped from a relatively high mean level to a relatively low mean level and stayed there for the next 30 odd years.

    A so-called ‘enhanced GHE’ could, as Bob Boder points out, not cause an increase in OHC without the troposphere and then the surface warming first to impede the solar heat in its escape from down there.

  349. dp says:
    August 5, 2014 at 9:59 am
    If the plot had been done using today’s method in 1930 instead of 2014 it apparently would not have been considered cherry picking.

    True, for the simple reason that you do not pick the final point. If you end with the latest month, then the final month is picked for you automatically.

  350. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 6:51 am

    Do you really not see the MWP & LIA in these 50-year averages in the reconstructed CET data:

    MWP (AD 800-1400): 9.2 to 10.2 degrees C
    LIA (AD 1400-1850): 8.7 to 9.24

    The difference is even more stark, without overlap, by comparing the core 150 years of each period, ie mean of 10.2 C for 1150-1300 with 8.8 C for 1550-1700. Please explain why Lamb saw the MWP & LIA in Manley’s data, but you can’t. Thanks.

  351. John Finn:

    I began my post at August 4, 2014 at 5:27 am by saying

    I am replying to your astonishingly stupid post at August 4, 2014 at 5:13 am.

    That was merely an accurate statement because your amazingly daft post had for the fourth time asserted the falsehood that global warming is other than an increase to global average surface temperature (GASTA) despite the truth having been explained to you each time.

    But you compounded your stupidity at August 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm by replying

    I am now replying to you ignorant and ill-informed at August 4, 2014 at 5:27 am. I shall try to be patient, Richard, since it’s my experience that those who resort to labelling others as stupid generally suffer from a lack of understanding of the issues involved.

    John Finn, the only “lack of understanding” is your daft claim that you have a right to unilaterally change the definition of global warming. And it is a mild description to say someone is “stupid” when that person is so daft as to refuse to see his error when repeatedly told he has no right to impose such a redefinition.

    Furthermore, at August 5, 2014 at 6:51 am you wrote to Milodonharlani saying

    You really don’ have a clue do you?

    because Milodonharlani had provided data which showed you were plain wrong.
    Clearly, according to you such a reply generally suggests you “suffer from a lack of understanding of the issues involved”.

    John Finn, your behaviour is despicable and when called on it you falsely accuse others of it. In summation, you are an especially egregious troll.

    Richard

  352. richardscourtney says:
    August 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    The first IPCC even included a graph based upon Lamb’s analysis of the MWP & LIA, showing the ~1.5 K difference between the warm peak & cold trough on a 50-year basis.

  353. milodonharlani says:
    August 5, 2014 at 10:55 am

    Right, now can you do the following:

    Read exactly what it says beneath the table of temperatures you posted. In particular note the first line which says. “Temperatures from 1680 are taken from MANLEY’S (1958, 1961) homogenized records”.

    MANLEY’S (1958, 1961) homogenized records formed the original CET record

    The next statement says Temperatures before 1680 averages derived from decade values of the winter mildness/severity index and the summer wetness/dryness index (p.20)”

    It is the post-1680 temperatures ONLY which are taken from the CET record.

    Ok now let’s look at the figures for the CET annual data (from your post)

    1650-1700 8.7
    1700-1750 9.24
    1750-1800 9.06
    1800-1850 9.12
    1850-1900 9.12
    1900-1950 9.41

    Could you now answer the following questions

    1. When did the LIA end – give reasons?
    2. I claimed the 19th century trend was flat. Lamb gives annual mean temperatures for the periods 1800-1850 and 1850-1900. They are exactly the same, i.e. 9.12 degrees Am I right or am I wrong?
    3. From the data it is possible to estimate mean annual temperatures for 1700-1800 and for 1800-1900. For 1800-1900 it is (trivially) 9.12 degrees. For 1700-1800 it is ~9.15 degrees. In other words the trend for entire 18th and 19th century is negligible.

    My calculations agree with Lamb’s figures.

  354. because Milodonharlani had provided data which showed you were plain wrong.

    Read my response to Milodonharlani and answer the same questions.

    Just to refresh your memory. I claimed that CE temperature trends for the 18th and 19th centuries were essentially flat. Now run along and use Hubert Lamb’s data to debunk my claim.

  355. What difference does it make that Manley made the reconstruction? I said Lamb’s analysis of the reconstructed data showed clearly that there was both the MWP & the LIA. Nothing you have spewed changes that fact.

    It doesn’t matter what average you compute for the 18th & 19th centuries. The LIA’s trough was in the 17th century. The early 18th had a brief counter-trend rally off the low of the 1690s.

    How many more times are you going to keep ignoring the inconvenient truth that average T in the LIA (c. 1400 to 1850) was lower than both the MWP (c. 800 to 1400) & the (less warm to date) Modern Warming Period, as I’ve repeatedly shown, & that this is especially true for the 150 years of peak MWP & trough LIA?

    Luckily your unfounded, biased opinion doesn’t matter. Lamb & Manley’s do.

  356. John Finn:

    Your post at August 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm addressed to milodonharlani poses a series of questions.

    Please explain the relevance of any of your questions to the subject of this thread which is that global warming has stopped and according to RSS it stopped nearly 18 years ago.

    Richard

  357. milodonharlani says:
    August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    What difference does it make that Manley made the reconstruction? I said Lamb’s analysis of the reconstructed data showed clearly that there was both the MWP & the LIA. Nothing you have spewed changes that fact.

    How did Lamb determine MWP temperatures?
    How were the CET temperatures in the 17th century “trough” measured?

  358. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Your averages for the 18th & 19th century cannot be used to show that the MWP & LIA didn’t exist, fool.

    The MWP was roughly AD 800-1400. The LIA was c. 1400 to 1850. Looking at a century average for the end of the LIA & start of the Modern Warm Period is meaningless, indeed worse than worthless.

    As I told you at the very beginning, look at a climatically significant resolution, ie in 30 or 60 year increments, starting from AD 1000 or earlier. Or at least include the whole of the LIA, with its trough in the 17th century. Just how obtuse are you willing to be?

  359. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Had you bothered to read the link I provided, you’d know. Amazing that you presume to comment on the LIA & MWP without having read Lamb, 1965, & his subsequent work.

    He used Manley’s work extending the CET series back from 1660 to 800, as you should know, since you mentioned Manley. But even just in the instrumental data from 1660 the Maunder Minimum trough of the LIA shows up clearly, as does the rapid rebound in the early 18th century, a faster, higher rise than the recent warming decades, which of course have been “adjusted” upwards & prior decades downwards. CET also captures the Dalton Minimum.

    As I said before, you’re a hopeless case, impossible to educate.

  360. richardscourtney says:
    August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    John Finn:

    Your post at August 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm addressed to milodonharlani poses a series of questions.

    Please explain the relevance of any of your questions to the subject of this thread which is that global warming has stopped and according to RSS it stopped nearly 18 years ago.

    Because, Richard, many, many comments back the author of this post (CM) cited the CET record to support his point. He justified this by stating that the CET was a good proxy for the NH as a whole. I pointed out that according to the CET record there was very little long term change in temperatures between 1700 and 1900. Basically CE temperatures in the early 18th century were pretty much the same as in the early 20th century.

    In other words there was no obvious LIA recovery between 1700 and 1900 in the CET record and so, by proxy, no LIA recovery in the NH. I also pointed out that pre-1700 temperature readings were highly dubious.

    Lamb’s CET data shows I was correct about the 1700-1900 trend. Other publications support the unreliability of pre-1700 readings.

  361. 1. When did the LIA end – give reasons?

    I have done this ad nauseum. It ended in the mid-19th century, among other reasons, because that’s when the T trend turned upward to stay. The warming in the late 19th century was followed after a cool interval by another warming in the early 20th century & by a third in the late 20th, again after a cooling interval. The warm rebound of the early 18th century was not followed by another upswing but a downswing.

    2. I claimed the 19th century trend was flat. Lamb gives annual mean temperatures for the periods 1800-1850 and 1850-1900. They are exactly the same, i.e. 9.12 degrees Am I right or am I wrong?
    3. From the data it is possible to estimate mean annual temperatures for 1700-1800 and for 1800-1900. For 1800-1900 it is (trivially) 9.12 degrees. For 1700-1800 it is ~9.15 degrees. In other words the trend for entire 18th and 19th century is negligible.

    The 20th century average isn’t much warmer than the 19th. The Holocene since about 5000 years ago has been stable, with fluctuations of only a few degrees at most, but the long term trend is down.

    The LIA is visible in the 17th century & other troughs. The MWP is visible in its main & lesser peaks. As I’ve repeatedly showed you, the 18th & 19th century averages mask swings diagnostic of the end of the LIA & start of the Modern Warm Period.

    The proxy data are plenty reliable enough to demonstrate both the MWP peak & LIA trough, not just in the North Atlantic region, but globally.

  362. richardscourtney says:
    August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Time to ignore this troll and move on. I sometimes wonder if the trolls on this blog are all the same loon. My opinion of humanity would be lower if I were convinced that there could really be so many ignoramuses infesting a single blog, no matter how popular.

  363. milodonharlani says:
    August 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm
    1. When did the LIA end – give reasons?

    I have done this ad nauseum. It ended in the mid-19th century, among other ….

    So it ended in the mid 19th century, did it? From Lamb’s figures we have

    1800-1850 mean temps = 9.12 degrees
    1850-1900 mean temps = 9.12 degrees

    What indication is there that the LIA ended in the mid 19th century? The temperatures in the first half of the 19th century are EXACTLY the same as in the second half of the 19th century.

    Do explain what it is you see that indicates the end of the LIA? Can you help him, Richard? What about you, sturgishooper? Anyone??

  364. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    I already told you one reason why the LIA ended in the mid-19th century. Why should I keep instructing you when you refuse to learn?

    But I’ll repeat. Global T appears to have gained in the early 19th century coming out of the Dalton Minimum, as it did in the early 18th century coming out of the Maunder Minimum. Look at the decadal average Ts in the CET, for instance, as I’ve repeatedly asked you to do. Then in the late 19th century for the first time since the Medieval Warm Period, a warming interval was followed after a cooling period by yet another warming interval in the early 20th century. This centennial scale trend reversal was confirmed in the late 20th century by another warming interval.

    The world has not made a new low since the 1690s trough of the LIA but has now made higher highs (in the official “data”) or at least close to them (in probable reality) in three successive peaks, ie the late 19th, early 20th & late 20th century decadal-scale warm intervals.

    I suggest you read Lamb, 1965, further to educate yourself. Here endeth the lesson.

  365. Warming in NE Asian waters during the long Minoan, long Roman, short Sui-Tang & long Medieval Warm Periods was greater than now. The Sui-Tang occurred during the Dark Ages Cold Period. Like the rapid rise in temperature in the early 1700s following the Maunder Minimum cold, it was a fairly brief return to warmth from the Dark Ages low point, but before the onset of the Medieval Warm Period.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/another-broken-hockey-stick-new-paper.html

    Another broken hockey stick: New paper finds ocean temps were warmer during multiple periods over past 2700 years & current warming within natural variability

    A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that sea surface temperatures [SSTs] in the Southern Okinawa Trough off the coast of China were warmer than the present during the Minoan Warm Period 2700 years ago, the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago, and the Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period 1400 years ago. According to the authors, “Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean [sea surface temperature] in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years.” In addition, the paper shows the rate of warming in the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Sui-Tang dynasty warm periods was much faster than in the current warming period since the Little Ice Age. The paper finds “A close correlation of SST in Southern Okinawa Trough with air temperature in East China, intensity of East Asian monsoon and the El-Niño Southern Oscillation index has been attributed to the fluctuations in solar output and oceanic-atmospheric circulation,” which corroborates other papers demonstrating that the climate is highly sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity. The paper adds to the peer-reviewed publications of over a thousand scientists showing that the current warm period is well within the range of natural variability and is not unprecedented, not accelerated, and not unusual in any respect.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052749/abstract

  366. Re middle of 1800s LIA end, please read the abstract from the above-cited 2012 paper (one of the many finding the same):

    Sea surface temperature variability in southern Okinawa Trough during last 2700 years

    Weichao Wu1,
    Wenbing Tan1,
    Liping Zhou1,2,
    Huan Yang3 and
    Yunping Xu1,2,*

    Most of the temperature reconstructions for the past two millennia are based on proxy data from various sites on land. Here we present a bidecadal resolution record of sea surface temperature (SST) in Southern Okinawa Trough for the past ca. 2700 years by analyzing tetraether lipids of planktonic archaea in the ODP Hole 1202B, a site under the strong influence of Kuroshio Current and East Asian monsoon. The reconstructed SST anomalies generally coincided with previously reported late Holocene climate events, including the Roman Warm Period, Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Current Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period and Little Ice Age. However, the Medieval Warm Period usually thought to be a historical analogue for the Current Warm Period has a mean SST of 0.6–0.8°C lower than that of the Roman Warm Period and Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period. Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean SST in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years. A close correlation of SST in Southern Okinawa Trough with air temperature in East China, intensity of East Asian monsoon and the El-Niño Southern Oscillation index has been attributed to the fluctuations in solar output and oceanic-atmospheric circulation.

  367. milodonharlani says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:10 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    I already told you one reason why the LIA ended in the mid-19th century. Why should I keep instructing you when you refuse to learn?

    You’re still waffling. Here’s graph of CET from 1772

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    There’s a dip in ~1780 another one in ~1820 another one in ~1840 and one in ~1890. None of these dips is significantly different to the other. All the peaks reach a virtually identical point (i.e. roughly the 1961-90 average)

    I see no turning point in the 19th century. Show me the point on the graph where the LIA ends?

  368. sturgishooper says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm
    Re middle of 1800s LIA end, please read the abstract from the above-cited 2012 paper

    Please read the previous 300 odd comments so you understand what this discussion is about. I’ll give you a clue it specifically relates to the CET and the end of the LIA.

    I’m assuming you can’t find the end of the LIA in the CET record either – at least not one that occurs in ~1850.

  369. John Finn says:

    Show me the point on the graph where the LIA ends?

    On a graph made from a single thermometer, in a single region of one smallish country? You extrapolate the entire planet from one site, and draw your wide-ranging conclusions?

    What if skeptics cherry picked like that? Would that be A-OK with you?

  370. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    What you lie as “waffling” I call telling the same thing over & over with no result in your brain. That means I’m nuts to keep trying.

    But one more time. Look at this graph from the first IPCC review in this link:

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

    Do you see where the line turns up in the mid-19th century, to regain fairly rapidly (by 1900) the long term (multi-century) average? That’s when Lamb identified the end of the LIA. I’m not going to teach you any more, since you refuse to learn. Do your homework & read the solid climate classics, studying hard.

  371. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    I’ve read enough of your drivel to know what’s going on.

    Yes, I can see the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s. Why can’t you?

  372. John Finn,

    You’re beginning to sound as whacked-out as ‘H Grouse’. Not quite as much. But getting closer…

    Why? Because you argue with everything. A sure sign of a closed mind.

  373. John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    In the “adjusted” Hadley CET “data” set you posted, why can’t you see the end of the LIA at either c. 1840, 1880 or in between? Those were the last lows of the LIA or last of it and first of the current Warm Period, since which time no new low has been made. I can see putting the mild gain in between those two lows either as the last of the MWP or first of the Modern Warm Period.

  374. dbstealey says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    John Finn says:

    “Show me the point on the graph where the LIA ends?”

    On a graph made from a single thermometer, in a single region of one smallish country? You extrapolate the entire planet from one site, and draw your wide-ranging conclusions?

    What if skeptics cherry picked like that? Would that be A-OK with you?

    That’s exactly what they do, in the head post here Monckton says:

    Updated key facts about global temperature

    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.

  375. Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) says:
    August 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    Made a funny graphic
    _______________________

    Credit where credit is due.

    That image is a Gary Larson original,
    to which you have photoshopped in a
    different chart in the background, and
    slightly changed the words around.

    It’s not really something that you made.
    At least you might have stated that it
    was “after Gary Larson (The Far Side)”,
    or apologies to Gary Larson & etc.

    This is the original “postcard”

    http://moblog.net/view/897525/another-far-side-card

    Still we appreciate the effort, but copyright may be
    an issue. The Far Side is actually quite an internet
    sensation, and I recognised Gary Larson signature
    scrawl straight away, though it can’t easily be read
    in the picture you showed at your link.

    Gary Larson is still alive, at the time of writing this
    comment, and ” The Far Side” cartoon series ran
    from January 1, 1980 until January 1, 1995, when
    Larson retired. He has published numerous books.

    see mostly originals with a few retouched examples

    https://www.google.com/search?q=gary+larson+far+side&tbm=isch

    My acknowledgement to Gary Larson.
    You made me laugh when depressed,
    and brightened many a cloudy day

    :-D

  376. Phil. says:
    August 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    Monckton uses satellite data for the whole planet, not the CET.

    CET has been shown a good proxy, with high correlation to planetary reconstructions and actual observations, however rigged by the US and UK regimes, in particular for the Northern Hemisphere. Moreover, it’s not from a single thermometer, but from many over centuries.

    If you imagine that you can show the MWP and LIA not to have existed and the “pause” to be false, please by all means let’s see your demonstration.

  377. No Global Warming for 17 years and 10 months ……
    The real Reason ?
    This is quite apropos

    A Gary Larson Original (unchanged)

    ;-)

  378. Phil. misses the point again:

    Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate…
    Ø The fastest warming trend…

    Acknowledging records is not cherry picking.

  379. dbstealey says:
    August 5, 2014 at 7:47 pm
    Phil. misses the point again:

    Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate…
    Ø The fastest warming trend…

    Acknowledging records is not cherry picking.

    As usual stealy when caught out in a mistake you squirm and try to change the subject.
    What you said was: “On a graph made from a single thermometer, in a single region of one smallish country? You extrapolate the entire planet from one site, and draw your wide-ranging conclusions?
    What if skeptics cherry picked like that? Would that be A-OK with you?”, which of course is exactly what Monckton does in the head post

  380. Kristian says:

    I’ve read this paragraph a couple of times now, and again I have to submit that you seem to have it all turned on its head. The physical temperature at any specific layer of air from the surface to the tropopause is determined by the surface temperature and the lapse rate climbing up from the surface through the tropospheric column, not by the radiation it ‘needs’ to emit. The emission comes after. The temperature is set first. Then the radiation. The radiative profile from the Earth to space is a result of the energy > temperature distribution of the Earth system. And the process maintaining this distribution (after the surface absorption of the solar input) is convection. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t tell us anything about what the temperature of each radiating layer ‘needs’ to be. The temperature is already known. Determined by the surface temp, by the lapse rate and by convection. Thermal radiation in the troposphere is a result of temperature, not a cause of it.

    If you do in fact agree to this, then I have misunderstood you and in that case, I apologise.

    Yes I think this is a communication problem. “Determination” is a fact-finding exercise. Just as a detective can determine, from the bullet holes in a wall, where the gun was fired from, so we can determine, by looking at the radiation escaping to space, what the temperature must be to cause that radiation. then we can determine within limits, the temperature at the surface, just as the detective then determines the height of the person firing the gun etc. But the detective never mistakes his “working backwards” from the bullet hole as somehow causing the shooter to have grown up to be a certain height. The shooter’s height caused the gun position, firing it caused the bullet hole. But we determine all that working in the reverse direction. Likewise here, the causation is from the surface upwards, but our observed data is at the end, so we work backwards.

  381. sturgishooper challenges Phil.:

    If you imagine that you can show the MWP and LIA not to have existed and the “pause” to be false, please by all means let’s see your demonstration.

    Phil. can’t demonstrate anything. He can’t tell the difference between reporting on a record and cherry picking.

    No wonder he’s wrong about the ‘carbon’ scare. Phil. has never yet been on the right side of the debate. The MWP and the LIA are historical facts. And global warming stopped a long time ago.

  382. sturgishooper says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    John Finn says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    I’ve read enough of your drivel to know what’s going on.

    Yes, I can see the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s. Why can’t you?

    Where is it?

    From Lamb’s own figures

    1800-1850 mean temps 9.12 degrees
    1850-1900 mean temps 9.12 degrees

    !800-1900 trend is 0,003 degrees per decade (total warming 0.03 degrees per century)

    Other “interesting” bits

    1801-1810 mean temps 9.11 degrees
    1910-1910 mean temps 9.07 degrees

    So the second decade of the Dalton Minimium (1790-1820) was slightly warmer than the first decade of the 20th century. In fact, the decade immediately preceding the Dalton Minimum (i.e. 1781-90) with a mean temperature of 8.9 degrees was colder than most of the Dalton Minimum.

  383. milodonharlani says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    But one more time. Look at this graph from the first IPCC review in this link:

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

    What exactly is this graph? Is it a cartoon drawing or what? What smoothing is used?

    If it is a genuine graph then I suspect the smoothing is such that the point in the late 19th century where temperatures show a rise is because that it is the midpoint of a moving average which includes readings from the 20th century.

    Tell you what, if i get a bit of time, I’ll take a look at it, and see if I can reproduce the graph.

    UPDATE No need Steve Mc has already done it – and I’m right. The upturn is an artefact of the 50 year smoothing. What you are seeing is an increase temperatures from about 1875 to 1925.,i.e. the increase in mean temps from 1850-1900 to 1900-1950.

  384. Further to my previous post

    John Finn says:
    August 6, 2014 at 1:47 am

    I’ve produced a graph of ALL data points between 1825 and 1950 as per the Lamb ‘graph’ and, as I suspected, the Lamb graph is a bit misleading (not deliberate). Because he appears to only use a few points (see CA link) to produce his drawing the upturn is seen from 1875. If all points are used the upturn doesn’t take place until about 1904.

  385. Ron House says, August 6, 2014 at 12:02 am:

    “Yes I think this is a communication problem. “Determination” is a fact-finding exercise. Just as a detective can determine, from the bullet holes in a wall, where the gun was fired from, so we can determine, by looking at the radiation escaping to space, what the temperature must be to cause that radiation. then we can determine within limits, the temperature at the surface, just as the detective then determines the height of the person firing the gun etc. But the detective never mistakes his “working backwards” from the bullet hole as somehow causing the shooter to have grown up to be a certain height. The shooter’s height caused the gun position, firing it caused the bullet hole. But we determine all that working in the reverse direction. Likewise here, the causation is from the surface upwards, but our observed data is at the end, so we work backwards.”

    OK. Good.

    But then I will have to ask you: What caused (yes, “caused”), in your mind, the surface to end up at 288K in the first place, making it able to, via the lapse rate, surface solar heating and the convective response, to establish that atmospheric layer midway up in the troposphere cool enough (255K) to give off Earth’s balanced radiation flux to space (239 W/m^2)? (Yes, there isn’t ONE such layer, we’ve clarified that; it’s an average.)

  386. In other words: Is it the fact that the atmosphere possesses a certain opacity to outgoing IR (because of the so-called ‘GHGs’) and that the IR will therefore have to be radiated away to space from somewhere up the atmosphere rather than from the surface? (The ‘elevated effective emission height’ explanation of the rGHE.)

    Or is there some other reason?

  387. dbstealey says:
    August 6, 2014 at 12:23 am
    sturgishooper challenges Phil.:

    Phil. can’t demonstrate anything. He can’t tell the difference between reporting on a record and cherry picking.

    You have got it wrong (what’s new). See this post by Monckton

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    …..
    Mr Finn is also incorrect to say mentioning the central England temperature is “ridiculous”. CET is a reasonable indication of global trends: it is on the right latitude, and over the past two cycles of the PDO (i.e. 120 years) its trend is within one-hundredth of a degree of the global trend.

    CM doesn’t say he is just reporting trends. He states that CET is “a reasonable indication of global trends” . He is clearly tying to make a direct comparison between CET and global trends. Your earlier point, therefore, about the “single location” contradicts the Monckton position.

    I expressed no opinion on the use of CET as a proxy for global temperatures but did suggest that a 19th century recovery from a LIA was not readily evident in the CET record. I also questioned the relative cooling in the Dalton Minimum based on the CET data.

    You should, perhaps, be aware that the well known ‘graph’ depicting both the MWP and LIA was almost entirely based (directly and indirectly) on the CET record.

  388. John Finn (August 6, 2014 at 3:20 am) “I’ve produced a graph of ALL data points between 1825 and 1950 as per the Lamb ‘graph’ and, as I suspected, the Lamb graph is a bit misleading (not deliberate). Because he appears to only use a few points (see CA link) to produce his drawing the upturn is seen from 1875. If all points are used the upturn doesn’t take place until about 1904.”

    I realize you are a troll, but I would like to thank you for pointing out that the Little Ice Age ended, according to CET, around 1904. I would argue 1890 given the graph you posted earlier: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ Some commenters may say I am wrong and it really ended in 1850. They may be crypto-trolls, or I may be a crypto-troll. My definition of a troll in this context is commenter simply attempting to stoke discord and cause arguments over complete trivialities. On my part I promise not to argue about the date the LIA ended any further except for the following point which will hopefully put some of the (false) controversy to rest.

    The CET may or may not be a suitable proxy for global temperature. But over the course of many decades and especially centuries, ANY local temperature record is a suitable proxy for global temperature. The reason is quite simple: there are no local effects that last for more than a few decades. I realize there are arguments to the contrary, the SkepSci people will tell you that the Atlantic currents changed for centuries at a time, cooling off Europe, blah blah blah. But they are wrong. Currents do not change for centuries at a time because there is no physical mechanism for them to do so.

    So this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig5.png is as good a worldwide proxy for temperature as the CET chart you posted. But we must also realize there can be local effects that last for a few decades. I appears that the LIA ended in 1900 plus or minus a few decades.

  389. To set this discussion in context here are some quotes from the latest post at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    “2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future . Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earths Climate – the Geological Approach.
    2.1 General Principles.
    The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables to build an understanding and narrative of general trends and patterns from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. The value of the geologists’ approach to understanding the past is proven by the trillions of dollars spent by the oil companies to find and produce the millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of gas needed daily to fuel the world economy. It works!

    “Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
    a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
    b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
    The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
    After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities to help forecast decadal and annual changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.
    In addition to these quasi-periodic processes we must also be aware of endogenous earth changes in geomagnetic field strength, volcanic activity and at really long time scales the plate tectonic movements and disposition of the land………… .
    The object of forecasting is to provide practical guidance for policy makers. The rate, amplitude and timing of climate change varies substantially from region to region so that, after accounting for the long term quasi-millennial periodicity, I suggest estimating the modulation of this trend by providing multi-decadal climate forecasts for specific regions. This would be accomplished with particular reference to the phase relationships of the major oceanic and atmospheric systems PDO AMO, NAO, ENSO etc, a la Aleo and Easterbrook linked to in section 2.4 above. The earth has been subdivided into tectonic plates. It would be useful to have, as a guide to adaptation to climate change, multi-decadal regional forecasts for the following suggested climate plates, which are in reality closely linked to global geography.
    1 North America and Western Europe.
    2 Russia
    3 China
    4 India and SE Asia
    5 Australasia and Indonesia
    6 South America
    7 N Africa
    8 Sub Saharan Africa
    9 The Arctic
    10 The Antarctic
    11 The intra tropical Pacific Ocean. Detailed analysis of the energy exchanges and processes at the ocean /atmosphere interface in this area is especially vital because its energy budget provides the key to the earth’s thermostat.”

  390. Now John Finn is defending “Phil.”?? heh

    Let me ask John Finn a very pertinent question: John, do you still believe the predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe? It certainly appears that you do. Why else would you argue incessantly with everyone?

    Runaway global warming is bunkum. If you don’t see that, John, you should. The planet itself has falsified that nonsense. So, what are we left with?

    We are left with minor nitpicks that would not affect humans or the biosphere one way or another. The rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 has been only from 0.03%, to 0.04% of the atmosphere over the past 150 years. So what? CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the past, with no ill effects. The recent rise is minuscule by comparison. It is well within the parameters of natural variability, and there is no measurable, testable evidence showing that CO2 is the cause [it might be — or not. But skeptics would like more than an evidence-free conjecture].

    So, why are you arguing incessantly, John? When skeptics are wrong, we acknowledge it and move on. But alarmists are different.

    Alarmists like you and ‘Phil.’ never admit that exactly none of your wild-eyed global warming predictions have happened, from Polar bears disappearing, to accelerating sea level rise, to vanishing Arctic ice, to ocean “acidification”, to frogs going extinct, to irreversible coral bleaching, to runaway global warming itself. Every crazy alarmist prediction has failed. None of them have happened.

    But you still argue incessantly. You move the goal posts, you engage in psychological projection, you falsely cry “Wolf!”, you promote alarmist blogs, and you never will admit you’ve been wrong about anything — when everyone here can see that you are routinely wrong.

    So, why do you persist in flogging the dead runaway global warming horse? Why do you not admit that Planet Earth herself is falsifying your “carbon” scare. In short, what is wrong with you?

  391. dbstealey says:
    August 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    Now John Finn is defending “Phil.”?? heh

    Let me ask John Finn a very pertinent question: John, do you still believe the predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe? It certainly appears that you do.

    No I don’t. I think warming from CO2 will be modest but that doesn’t mean I support every argument made by “sceptics”.

  392. eric1skeptic says:
    August 6, 2014 at 4:34 am

    The last really cold year (average under eight degrees C) in the CET, as currently adjusted, was 1879. The last years under nine degrees C were 1985 and ’86, in the record as it now stands.

    IMO it’s the bounce c. 1861-78 off another cold year (1860) in a cool decade (1851-60) which made 20th century climate researchers pick the mid-19th century as the end of the LIA, but the precise decade or so is fungible, IMO.

    http://www.newtownweather.co.uk/cetdata/cetdata.html

    That 1860s and ’70s bounce was followed, as bounces typically are, by a similar number of years on average cooler, c. 1879-97. Here are decadal averages, which don’t perfectly align with natural fluctuations:

    1841-50: 9.10 degrees C
    1851-60: 9.04
    1861-70: 9.42
    1871-80: 9.09
    1881-90: 8.83
    1891-1900: 9.27
    1901-10: 9.07
    1911-20: 9.33

    The 1880s were also cold and snowy in the USA, perhaps a last blast of the LIA or just a strong first cooling cycle in the fledgling Modern Warm Period.

    It appears as if cycles in the AMO might be shorter than in the PDO.

  393. John Finn says:

    I think warming from CO2 will be modest but that doesn’t mean I support every argument made by “sceptics”.

    If any effect from CO2 is at most “modest”, why argue at all? It’s just not important; there are many other things that are more important regarding policy. CO2 is a non-issue. So again, why argue?

    And putting quote marks around the word skeptics is disingenuous. Skeptics question. That’s what we do here. The problem with climate alarmists is that they can’t answer our questions.

    Also, anyone who doesn’t accept that the MWP and the LIA were global events has an alarmist agenda. Those things happened. The LIA was one of the coldest episodes in the entire Holocene. Pretending it didn’t happen is also disingenuous.

  394. For comparison, CET average for 1961-1990 is presently given as 9.48 degrees C and 9.75 for 1971-2000, but of course those “data” are suspect.

    In any case, the 1860s and most of the ’70s were a leap well into the next century, so as good a place as any to start the Modern Warming Period, IMO.

  395. sturgishooper (August 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm)

    Fair enough, I can see how decade long cooling periods can overlay the long term rise. Note to John Finn, you can not just cherry pick a decade from sometime in the early 1800’s and another one in the early 1900’s and say “aha, they match!” That is just weather.

  396. eric1skeptic says:
    August 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Only an intent to lie with statistics could compel a commenter to look at two centuries in the CET without breaking them down and also comparing with what came before, when suitable data are available, IMO.

    Others have pointed out that the Met has, I’m shocked! (Not!), warmed up the CET, as shown by among others, prominent British meteorologist and weather historian Philip Eden, who has a weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph.

    Eden’s Website describes how the Met Office, after taking over from Manley following the latter’s death, changed the area and locations of some of the sites upon which Manley based his CET table to 1974. Eden developed his CET series after that date from sites of his choosing which he feels more closely resemble Manley’s original sites. No surprise that the discrepancies between the two sets are almost always warmer in the Met records. So the CET record after 1974 is generally warmer than it should be and is not to be relied upon.

    http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html

    http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/63265-1981-2010-philip-eden-cet-averages/

    That said, here are the Met’s averages, comparing rates of temperate increase between 50-year averages:

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/long-term-central-england-temperature-trends/

    1941-1990 9.53 1881-1930 9.17
    1961-2010 9.74 1901-1950 9.41
    Increase 0.21 Increase 0.24

    Still instructive, even if massaged. Warming from 1881 to 1930 is practically identical to that from 1941 to 2010, without cherry picking, since only the warm decade of the 1930s is left out.

  397. Actually, the comparison of the 60 years 1881-1940 with the 60 years 1941-2000 would be even more instructive, IMO, although the first starts cold while the second period starts warm.

    I meant to say above, comparing 1881-1930 with 1901-50 and 1941-90 with 1961-2010 periods, not 1941-2010. Sorry. Trying to talk on the phone and type at the same time apparently is more multi-tasking than I’m up to.

  398. rgbatduke says:
    August 4, 2014 at 5:50 am

    Indeed, comparison with a ouija board is quite apropos. The mechanics of answer selection is almost identical.

    Oui! Ja!

  399. sturgishooper says:
    August 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm
    For comparison, CET average for 1961-1990 is presently given as 9.48 degrees C and 9.75 for 1971-2000, but of course those “data” are suspect.

    Why are those data suspect?

  400. sturgishooper

    exactly right.

    I had discussions with David Parker at the met office last year. He was the person who created the daily CET series from 1772.

    He confirmed the current crop of stations appeared to have been running warm and they had been changed in recent years. Also that there was an allowance for UHI from 1976 although I suspect, bearing in mind virtually the whole of Britain is a heat island, that the allowance was not enough.

    I think I have the pdf on the subject that I was sent by the Met office. Do you want me to dig it out?

    tonyb

  401. sturgishooper says:
    August 6, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    No surprise that the discrepancies between the two sets are almost always warmer in the Met records. So the CET record after 1974 is generally warmer than it should be and is not to be relied upon.

    Bull. You’re just making stuff up. Eden’s readings are typically ~0.1 degrees higher than the Met Office since 2000.

  402. climatereason says:
    August 7, 2014 at 1:42 am

    Also that there was an allowance for UHI from 1976 although I suspect, bearing in mind virtually the whole of Britain is a heat island, that the allowance was not enough.

    I’ve had a look at this a couple of times over the years but can find no evidence that UHI is affecting the CET trend. You might have come across the Armagh Observatory data (1796-2002) which was ‘reconstructed’ in Butler et al (2005). This is the same Butler who with Johnson produced a paper which claimed to show a link between solar cycle length and temperature. David Archibald regularly cited B&J until it became obvious that the SCL/temperature relationship had broken down.

    Anyway, the Armagh Observatory record was claimed by many sceptics to be an example of an ideal location for the recording of temperatures. The location was basically unchanged in 200 years. Apart from Archibald, other more qualified sceptics such as Doug Hoyt also supported the Armagh data.

    Armagh is, on average, about 200 miles from the CE region (Birmingham to Belfast is ~220 miles).

    I’ve just downloaded the Armagh data again. For the 100 years up to 2002 (the last year in the Armagh record) the trends are

    Armagh +0.072 degrees per decade
    CET +0.073 degrees per decade

    For the last 26 years of the Armagh record (1975-2002) the trends are

    Armagh +0.38 degrees per decade
    CET +0.35 degrees per decade

    Armagh data is here: http://climate.arm.ac.uk/calibrated/airtemp/mon-3ser-clean4.txt

    I get a similar result whenever I use other stations. I’ve looked at a number in the CET region – but not included in the CET data.

  403. eric1skeptic says:
    August 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm
    sturgishooper (August 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm)

    Note to John Finn, you can not just cherry pick a decade from sometime in the early 1800’s and another one in the early 1900’s and say “aha, they match!” That is just weather.

    I picked a decade during the Dalton Minimum and compared it with a decade exactly 100 years later. The Dalton Minimum was supposed to be a period of extreme cold. But, Ok, fair enough we won’t use individual decades. Does that mean we can’t use the past decade to show that global warming has stopped.

  404. “The Dalton Minimum was supposed to be a period of extreme cold”

    Not while stored ocean heat is released into the atmosphere. The sun bottomed out around 1810 and the CET (from your graph) a few years later. The past decade is not sufficient to show warming has stopped. Most of us didn’t make a big deal about flat temperatures in mid to late 2000’s when we posted. Now it has been 17-18 years so it is starting to become significant. Soon it will be 20, then 25…

  405. Mr Finn asks whether we can use the past decade to show that global warming has stopped. No: but we can use the past 17 years 10 months to show that, on the RSS satellite record, there has been no global warming at all; or we can use a similar period to show that on the mean of all five key datasets there has been no warming distinguishable from the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties.

    Additionally, we can show that the discrepancy between the rate of warming predicted with “substantial confidence” by the models in 1990 and reported by the IPCC that year, on the one hand, and real-world observation, on the other, is very large indeed. Over a quarter of a century the models have predicted twice the warming that has actually occurred.

    Before we spend any more trillions on making what may be a non-problem go away, it would be best to wait a few more years. For CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, but none of the key adverse consequences of that fact, including global temperature change, has come to pass.

    One thing that the Great Pause tells us is that there is no hurry. The climate is no warmer than it was when the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report was published almost two decades ago. There is manifestly no need to take panic measures. There are many real environmental problems in the world, and they need to be dealt with now. Let us take the mature decision to deal with the most immediate problems first, and let the temperature record unfold a little longer before we invest any more of other people’s money on something that – in the increasingly unlikely event that it needs dealing with at all, certainly does not need to be dealt with now.

  406. eric1skeptic says:
    August 7, 2014 at 5:51 am
    “The Dalton Minimum was supposed to be a period of extreme cold”

    Not while stored ocean heat is released into the atmosphere. The sun bottomed out around 1810 and the CET (from your graph) a few years later.

    Ah yes, of course, I forgot about the “lag”. But, hang on a minute, the CET graph shows a dip in 1780 – when solar activity was high. Let’s take a look at the decadal mean temperatures

    1781-1790 8.9
    1791-1800 9.1
    1801-1810 9.1
    1811-1820 8.8

    How did that happen? Did the oceans and the CE region somehow anticipate the upcoming Dalton Minimum. The final decade of the DM was cooler than the first 2 decades but it did include the massive Tambura eruption and it wasn’t appreciably cooler than 1781-90. Interestingly, 1811-1820 was the decade when the Royal Admiralty observed an unusual loss of polar ice (1817) so I’m not sure how much influence ocean heat had on the CET temperatures.

    By the way, it’s not “my” graph. The graph uses the data which was compiled by Gordon Manley and used by Hubert Lamb in his reconstruction of past temperatures.

  407. There is no need to look at decades on decimal boundaries, that is as arbitrary choosing to use 10 year averages. Manley’s graph is sufficient to see the fluctuations based on solar and other natural factors. Nothing really jumps out. Mainly cold in the 1800’s, cool in the 1900’s, and warm from the early 80’s to present. I wouldn’t expect Tambora or other volcanoes to show up, there are two oceans in between England and most of them.

    I can’t explain the dip in the early 1780’s coming after the big sunspot peak in 1778, but there are always going to be some local fluctuations and the 1778 and 1788 peaks came in an otherwise low solar activity regime.

  408. Mr Finn makes the IPCC’s mistake of using decadal means rather than longer-term trends. The most startling aspecButts of the Central England record are its faithfulness in reproducing the Maunder Minimum, showing the decline in temperature from the outset of the record in 1659 to the end of the century, followed by the very rapid recovery of temperature at the end of the Minimum. The solar physicists (see e.g. Solanki et al., 2005) find the Maunder minimum to have been the period of least solar activity in the past 11,400 years, and there is a growing body of literature suggesting that the grand maximum of 1925-1995, centered on 1960, was also rare, if not unique, over the same timescale. No surprise, then, that some global warming occurred both at the end of the grand minimum and at the beginning of the near-grand maximum. Separating out these and other undeniably significant natural influences from the also possibly significant anthropogenic influence is not easy. What remains clear is that the rate of global warming since 1950 is very much less than the models had predicted, and this begins to suggest that the pudding has been overegged by the IPCC and the modelers.

  409. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 8, 2014 at 12:51 am
    Mr Finn makes the IPCC’s mistake of using decadal means rather than longer-term trends.

    I used long term (100 year) trend to show the Dalton minimum was no different to any other period in the 18th and 19th centuries. I used the decacdal means to show that there was a cool decade before the Dalton Minimum started.

    The solar physicists (see e.g. Solanki et al., 2005) find the Maunder minimum to have been the period of least solar activity in the past 11,400 years, and there is a growing body of literature suggesting that the grand maximum of 1925-1995, centered on 1960,

    You really need to look at Leif Svalgaard’s research into this area. The evidence is compelling and -contrary to what you say – acceptance by the wider solar community is growing. Solar activity in the 20th century was not significantly different to solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    But since you seem unconvinced why don’t we have a bet. You say there was a grand maximum between 1925 and 1995 and presumably you think that this strongly influenced the 20th century temperature trend. Now that the “grand maximum” is over the global temperature mean should eventually return to 1970s levels by 2025. That’s 30 years after the end of the Grand Maximum.

    I’m prepared to have a few quid on it – what about you?

  410. Leif’s Ap index page seems to be screwed up (pre 1900). Instead I plotted the SSN data from here http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt and it looks like this: http://shpud.com/SSN.png Counting the blue dots above the 100 line (second from the bottom) I see a lack from about 1785 through about 1835 but the CET went cooler sooner, stayed cooler later than that and had less cold period in 1820’s through early 1830’s. Not a great match except for the general coolness.

    Then the next lack of blue dots above 100 is about 1870 through about 1930. Another cold to cool (mostly cool) period for the CET.

    What Monckton of Brenchley just mentioned is the extra blue dots above the 100 line from the 1940’s through early 90’s finally down at the 2000 peak. It’s a correlation with warming that is hard to ignore. My estimate of the warming from solar TSI alone is 0.05C of warming per 1W/m2 of TSI increase per 1C of sensitivity. Thus a 0.15C increase in temperature in the late 20th century (warmist), 0.1C (mildist) or 0.05C (coolist) from TSI alone, not counting any other effects of higher solar activity. Those other effects include higher frequency UV which destroys the ozone layer, cools the stratosphere and warms the troposphere, lower GCR which results in fewer low clouds with varying effects on weather and climate.

    I’d put money on no rise by 2020. Nobody claims there is no rise from manmade CO2. But to really have no rise by 2020: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2014_v5.png A moderate El Nino reaching 0.4 (red line) in 2020 would indicate zero warming over 2010. Zero warming is a safe bet. Actual cooling is more of a stretch, but possible.

  411. eric1skeptic says:
    August 8, 2014 at 4:29 am

    I’d put money on no rise by 2020.

    That’s not the same thing. Christopher Monckton has argued for a modern maximum between 1925 and 1995 and, I assume, that this has been responsible for 20th century warming trend. . The maximum is now over so temperatures should start to fall. Not immediately, perhaps, but I’m giving it 30 years after the end of the maximum to detect a cooling trend.

    Nobody claims there is no rise from manmade CO2. But to really have no rise by 2020

    You don’t appear to read WUWT blog comments very closely.

  412. eric1skeptic says:
    August 8, 2014 at 4:29 am
    Leif’s Ap index page seems to be screwed up (pre 1900). Instead I plotted the SSN data from here http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt and it looks like this: http://shpud.com/SSN.png

    The SSN data is almost certainly wrong. This issue is at the heart of my disagreement with CM. This comment by Leif Svalgaard explains the stages that led to a new reconstruction of past SSN.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/#comment-1704123

    Point 17 states:

    17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now. In particular, TSI now is very likely the same as it was 100 years ago

  413. “That’s not the same thing. Christopher Monckton has argued for a modern maximum between 1925 and 1995 and, I assume, that this has been responsible for 20th century warming trend.”

    You assume wrong. He simply says that the 20th century warming trends are not unprecedented and acknowledges that it is an additive combination of manmade and natural warming.

    “You don’t appear to read WUWT blog comments very closely.”

    I do but ignore trolls who claim that CO2 warming does not exist.

    “17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now. In particular, TSI now is very likely the same as it was 100 years ago”

    No argument with that. The recent TSI peak looks almost exactly like the 1907 peak.

  414. It is not clear what point Mr Finn is making. There was a solar Grand Minimum from 1645-1715 that was well reflected in the Central England temperature record. There was a near-Grand Maximum fro 1925-1995, during which solar activity was almost as great as at any time in the past 11,400 years. The change in solar activity from the Maunder Minimum to the near-Grand Maximum may well have been the greatest in the past 11,400 years. It should come as no surprise, then, that it is warmer now than it was in the Little Ice Age. Separating the contributions of Man from those of Nature, including the Sun, is not easy.

    However, it is plain that the models have assumed a far larger anthropogenic contribution than is plausible, for the temperature record shows half the warming the models predicted a quarter of a century ago. This discrepancy between prediction and reality is undeniable. The models were wrong. Therefore, we can have little confidence that they will be right henceforward. In the temperature data to date, there is no – repeat no – definite evidence of any anthropogenic influence at all. I suspect that there may have been some, but probably not very much.

Comments are closed.