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

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}

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

What after el Nino ends ?

‘….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…..

“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…..

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.

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. 🙂

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

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,”

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

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.

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 “

Beta Blocker says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
“very useful for comparison purposes.”
This is a rough comparison
.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

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.

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.)

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.

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).

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?

What “El Niño” ???? – it seem to have fizzled out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/enso/

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

“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.

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!

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:16 pm
See my response to Mr Werme at 2:55 pm

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm
” global warming would have to remain stopped for at least fifteen years”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend

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 ?

“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.

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.

Bad news for Global Cooling Deniers.
And even more bad news, the EL Nino that supposed to be super won’t turn out at all.

Thanks, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
You wrote:
In answer to Mr Valencia, one can go back 13 years 4 months and still find a zero trend on the NCDC data.
Yes, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/ shows -0.01°C/Decade from 2001 to 2014.
I shall include this in my pages.

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%.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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..

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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 🙂