Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The long and model-unpredicted Great Pause of 18 years 8 months in global mean lower-troposphere temperature as recorded in the RSS satellite monthly dataset is inexorably driving down the longer-run warming rate, when the IPCC’s predictions would have led us to expect an acceleration.
The graph shows the entire RSS lower-troposphere satellite dataset for the 440 months January 1979 to August 2015, with the bright blue trend on the entire series equivalent to just over 1.2 C°/century. Overlaid graph in green is the zero trend in the 224 months since January 1997 – more than half the entire 440-month record.
| RSS anomalies (K/century equivalent),
Jan 1979 to Dec of the year shown |
|||||
| 1990 | 0.50 | 1999 | 1.45 | 2008 | 1.41 |
| 1991 | 0.89 | 2000 | 1.37 | 2009 | 1.36 |
| 1992 | 0.33 | 2001 | 1.46 | 2010 | 1.46 |
| 1993 | 0.12 | 2002 | 1.57 | 2011 | 1.36 |
| 1994 | 0.29 | 2003 | 1.66 | 2012 | 1.29 |
| 1995 | 0.66 | 2004 | 1.61 | 2013 | 1.24 |
| 1996 | 0.71 | 2005 | 1.66 | 2014 | 1.21 |
| 1997 | 0.82 | 2006 | 1.61 | 2015 | 1.21 |
| 1998 | 1.53 | 2007 | 1.58 |
As one would expect, the point (2007-8) where the long-run trend-line intersects the Pause trend-line is the moment from which the Pause begins to reduce the long-run trend. As the table shows, the trend had been below 1 K/century till the Great El Niño of 1998 lifted it suddenly above 1.5 K/century. It remained there till 2008, since when it has been dropping gently. From January 1979 to August 2015, the trend was just 1.21 K/century.
In 1990, the IPCC had predicted near-straight-line warming of 1 K to 2025, equivalent to almost 2.8 K/century. Of this warming, more than 0.7 K should have happened by now, but only 0.26 K has actually occurred. The IPCC’s central estimate in 1990, though made on the basis of “substantial confidence” that the models on which it relied had captured all the essential features of the climate system, has proven – thus far, at any rate – to be a near-threefold exaggeration.
In the run-up to the Paris world government conference, the climate Communists are making determined efforts to pretend that the Pause does not exist, or that the rate of warming since 1990 is exactly as the IPCC had predicted. Both pretenses are false. The UAH and RSS satellite data both show the Pause, though the terrestrial tamperature datasets have all been altered in the past year with the effect of concealing it.
Furthermore, the warming rate is now embarrassingly far below prediction. It is worth demonstrating this fact with the IPCC’s own graphs:
The above graph is interesting, because in pale blue it shows the IPCC’s current generation of models – 42 of them – making predictions on the assumption that drastic reductions in CO2 emissions are made. Yet observed temperatures, shown in black, are already visibly at odds with – and falling below – even the least the prediction, and a long way below the central prediction.
As a result of the IPCC’s admission that 111 of its 114 models had over-predicted the warming rate in recent decades, it produced the above graph in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, showing a considerable reduction in its near-term predictions.
Whenever the IPCC produces graphs to a tiny scale, it is worth enlarging them to see what is being hidden. The above graph is a considerable enlargement of a tiny corner of an IPCC graph from the Fifth Assessment Report, illustrating clearly (at this scale) the extent to which observed temperatures have failed to keep pace with the models’ exaggerated predictions. CMIP3 was the ensemble of models for the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report: CMIP5 is the current ensemble. Both over-predict, but the latest models (in red) over-predict less drastically than the earlier models (in blue), when compared with observed temperatures (in black).
The above graph shows how drastically the IPCC was compelled to reduce its near-term warming projections between the spaghetti-graph shown and the sharply downward-revised prediction zone between the two green arrows. The red arrows show where the medium-term predictions were in 1990. The observed trend, in black, is trailing along at the very bottom of the prediction zone.
The before-and-after graphs above show the change in the IPCC’s predictions between its pre-final and final drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report.
A point worth making to those who continue to deny that there has been a Pause or that the discrepancy between prediction and reality continues to widen with each passing year is that all of the graphs in this posting, except the first, are IPCC graphs. If even the IPCC is now admitting that the models had exaggerated, it is time for the climate Communists to adjust the Party Line to bring it closer to the real world.
What, then, would be a logical and rational policy for nations to adopt at the forthcoming Paris summit to establish a global government (for the time being this will be called the “governing body”):
1. A secession clause is a freedom clause. Given the failure of prediction that is self-evident in the IPCC’s “consensus” documents, nations no longer willing to spend trillions on the basis of further alarming but probably exaggerated predictions should reserve the right to give a short period of notice and then leave the entire treaty process, and all obligations thereunder, without penalty. The Kyoto Protocol had a secession clause at Art. 27. The Treaty of Paris should have a secession clause also. However, the draft secession clause which – after much work by me and others – was in the Bonn draft earlier this year may well be dropped on grounds of shortening the current draft, so pressure should be brought to bear on your governments to ensure that the secession clause is not dropped.
2. A sunset clause is also advisable, to take account of a possible widening of the discrepancy between exaggerated prediction and unexciting, harmless observed reality. The entire treaty process would be brought to an end, all nations’ obligations thereunder would cease, and the UNFCCC and the IPCC would be abolished, if for any period of at least 20 years during the 21st century the global warming rate, expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on any one of the five longest-standing monthly global surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets, were to fall below 1 Celsius degree per century equivalent. In business, predictive failures are punished. In global government, let predictive failures be punished also, for the cost of the measures intended to address the non-problem of global warming is in any event disproportionate to the value any conceivable benefit.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lord M, Great analysis!
As you may know, in my city of Christchurch NZ which you visited a few years back, is now fighting the local government who want to identify every property that will be in danger of flooding or inundation within the next 100 years. Incredibly, they are not using the IPCC predictions of sea level rising but some twisted exaggeration which allows 1 meter of sea level rise in that 100 years.
With your permission, I will use some of your analysis in my submission in an attempt to stop this madness.
Every property built within these zones will have to show what “mitigation” they are providing in order to get a building consent. (Building Consents are needed for additions as well) or apply for a “resource Consent” which can run into the 100’s of thousands!. It is expected that current properties will lose most of their value and insurance and therefore mortgages and loans will be impossible to get or be withdrawn. It is estimated 18, 000 properties will be affected.
I see this as an Agenda 21 initiative being foisted on us by dishonesty and back door political tricks.
A message to the rest of the world. Keep a close eye on your government!
Here are some links which may be of interest.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/63768303/Christchurch-mayor-demands-sea-level-action
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/effectsofsealevelriseforchristchurchcity.pdf
This change to the district plan is being pushed through under Earthquake legislation originally designed to speed up processes for rebuilding the city!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Keep an eye on your government. To think we used to think such as the Michigan Militia were a band of idiots. How do I join?
“In global government, let predictive failures be punished also, for the cost of the measures intended to address the non-problem of global warming is in any event disproportionate to the value any conceivable benefit.”
This imaginary Government you dreamed up obviously doesn’t operate anything like the US Government does. Malfeasance never gets punished (IRS scandal, private servers containing classified data, EPA “secret science” in support of their Endangerment Finding, etc.). If anything they are allowed to retire with their overinflated, underfunded pensions in tact (and perhaps run for higher office).
Not only do the taxpayers lose the benefit of the money that was misspent, their children will also be on the hook to pay the actual cost down the road as the Government accelerates the printing of additional money to make up the exponential shortfall between current revenue and deficit spending.
After all, it is “for the children,” I’m sure they appreciate it when they get the final bill.
Sounds to me like the government of Christchurch is trying desperately to generate some local climate refugees who have all lost their beachfront property to man-made (up) global warming.
If you don’t get the sarcasm here, please read again, slowly.
The Press, Christchurch, headline (proposed): “Man-made Global Warming Responsible for Local Climate Change Refugees”
Hey, somebody has to be the first climate change refugee. Citizens of Christchurch, you win the honor.
If there are refugees from anyplace to anyplace anywhere on the planet, a way can be found to attribute their status to climate change that is just on the horizon and close enough that the refugees have seen it coming, thus fled the anticipated (predicted) onslaught of (you name the weather related malady they took flight to get away from.) Actually, in just about all cases, those who are fleeing as refugees are fleeing the effects being dumped on their backs by their incompetent governments. Now, could that not be said to be anthropogenically caused?
There is absolutely NO reason to call this a pause.
It’s more likely a Peak.
When you climb to the top of a mountain, would you not pause before climbing down again?
…except time marches on.
And if using Spencer & Christy’s dataset instead of RSS and then compare this to the surface record (by HadCRUt3), the “Pause” (or whatever, “Plateau”) becomes so ridiculously evident that it should be pretty hard to deny:
But they do it anyway …
Interesting question: “What would be temperature be right now if we were not in the El Nino phase?”
The definition of what is being calculated is more accurately identified as a decline: the longest period of time in which the trend line is BELOW zero. So if we want to be accurate, we would be calling it “The Decline”. But who wants to be accurate?
Not compared to the MWP, but wait maybe you are still believer in the Hockey Shitck?
Why do you think that the CET instrumental record with a guess spliced to it is relevant?
Hey Phil, its all the rage in consensus science.
Pico de Gallo
Sounds good. You may be interested in a Motion carried by my own Branch of the Liberal Party in June. It reads as follows:
“The Tweed River Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) notes that the objective of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) to be held in Paris November/December 2015 is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. As part of this process, nations are expected to submit their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions with a view to reducing an expected Global Temperature Rise to no more than two degrees Celsius.
Accordingly the Tweed River Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) considers that the Australian government must ensure that important safeguards are contained in the proposed agreement. These are:
(a) that each nation shall determine its own proposed reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions;
(b) that the agreement shall not come into force until ratified by nations which emit in total not less than 75% of the global carbon dioxide emissions;
(c) that each nation may, subsequent to the coming into force of the agreement, abrogate its ratification;
(d) that abrogation shall be effective immediately upon receipt by the UNCCC Secretariat;
(e) that no nation shall be required to provide finance to any other nation to assist such nation in reaching that nation’s proposed reduction;
(f) that no distinction shall be made between so-called “Developed” and “Developing” and “Less Developed” countries;
(g) that each nation may, subsequent to the coming into force of the agreement, modify its reduction target in the light of economic circumstances and new advances in scientific knowledge;
(h) that the agreement provide for scientific investigation into the benefits of a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius or more, noting that overall more deaths are due to excessive cold than to excessive heat;
(i) that the agreement provide for scientific investigation into the benefits of increased carbon dioxide emissions for agriculture, noting that carbon dioxide is necessary together with water and photosynthesis for the growth of plants on which all life depends.”
If you are a member of a political party – as you should be, suggest you put forward a motion on these lines at your next Branch meeting. Good Luck!
I have a suggestion:
That should be all that’s needed. Forget (b) to (i).
There – fixed it for you.. 😉
The Motion above, carried at the June meeting, was followed up by this Motion at the July meeting. This Motion also was carried:
“The Tweed River Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) notes that in the last 15 years, while the atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide has increased by 9%, global temperatures have, within the limits of observational error, ceased rising and are now less than temperatures projected by approximately 95% of the IPCC climate models. Accordingly, the science supporting the theory of ‘Climate Change’ is widely questioned and is no longer regarded by all scientists as being settled.
The Tweed River Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) therefore requests that as a matter or urgency before Australia commits to a Treaty proposed to be signed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) in Paris in November/December 2015, the Australian Government take the following actions:
(1) publish the computer models, which the climate scientists who support Global Warming have developed to ‘prove’ their theories of catastrophic global warming being caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for public scrutiny by other world scientists, statisticians and computer modellers in order to identify possible mathematical faults and/or scientific law contradictions.
(2) ensure that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology use and publish real Australian and world empirical temperatures (not ‘adjusted’, ‘homogenised’ or otherwise altered) from 1900, and this data shall be the only data used to project how much the temperature will rise or fall by 2100.
(3) request the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to assess whether yearly temperature changes from 1900 to date are within the range of natural variability or not.”
Go for it!
” and the UNFCCC and the IPCC would be abolished”
You wish.
Parkinson and Pournelle have taught us that organisations like these have lives of their own, regardless of the facts or of reality, and will NEVER be abolished whatever happens. Too many careers depend on them.
When CAGW finally dies a death, they will segue smoothly to whatever is the next scare.
Indeed UN bodies , which is what they are , do have zombie like qualities .
The International Panel on Ocean Acidification, IPOA. You heard it here, first.
“tamperature datasets”. Nice one.
Should be “tamperature sets”, since they are no longer DATA post-tampering.
The main output from climate simulations that the IPCC use global temperature.
As all IPCC general climate models are grid based, it would be good to see a listing of 10 years worth of simulation output containing the following:
Grid cells (with lat/long) that are:
a) hottest, coldest, wettest, driest;
b) Run length of a)
c) number of contiguous grid cells containing any of a) above.
Global average temperature is such a blunt measure, it would be helpful to see the above individual cell data used to make up the reported global averages.
Before modellers say this would be too much work, let me say, averages can only come from collections of data, lets just have the results of simple SQL queries to give us the above.
For a global average temperature prediction to be useful (if ever) the weather patterns that are produced by these simulations must be seen to be ‘normal’ for the subsequent average to have any value.
For the purpose of the above lets disregard the applicability of an average temperature.
Global mean surface temperature is a “blunt estimate”, not a “measure”.
“Normal” is not a concept that can be applied to climate or weather. Normal means conforming to a norm, or standard, verified by experiment or other reliable means. Normal body temperature for humans is 98.6, known for centuries, accepted worldwide, applicable to all people. As long as we retain normal temperature, that aspect of our health is good. Go 5 or 6 degrees F above that, though, and we court serious consequences, possibly death. The same is true for (I think) 7 or 8 degrees below normal, which can lead to catastrophic or fatal consequences. That norm is there for a reason, and people rely on knowledge of whether that norm is maintained for individual persons–or, if not, why not, and what to do to restore it. Another instance of the real meaning of “normal”: Playwright George Bernard Shaw, at the urging of friends, visited an oculist (now called an optometrist) to have his vision tested. After an exhaustive set of tests, Shaw was told that his vision was normal, “and that condition is very rare.” There are objective standards as to what the human eye should be able to see.
The weather is not like that. Even if we could go back to Eden and sample and record the conditions then, we could not set them as a norm. Certainly we can’t set something up as a norm now. We can record data and take averages. But an average is not a norm. This date in central Virginia, for example, has for the past 30 years (absurdly short span) averaged a high of 84 and a low of 63, for a mean of 73.5. Today it actually reached 85 after a morning low of 64, for a mean of 74.5, one degree above average. September so far has averaged a bit high, as did May; the other months have all been low, with February coming in at 12.5 degrees below average (28.5 actual vs 41 average).
Say the average temperature for a day is 75. The day begins at 60 degrees under a clear sky, but clouds roll in and a chilly rain begins by about 10 a.m. and persists until evening, dropping over an inch of precipitation, with a high temp for the day of 68 degrees F, Not only does the rain grossly exceed the daily average of a tenth of an inch, but the mean temperature is 64, eleven degrees below the long-term average. Is this day abnormal? Surely, a departure from normal can be termed abnormal; and yet, there is nothing abnormal about sudden drastic swings in temperature, wind, wind direction, rain, and all the other aspects of that chaotic system called weather. We can talk about departures from average; but since we cannot know what normal is in a chaotic system, we cannot correctly apply the term to it.
Ah yes. A temperature of 140F in middle Virginia would certainly not be abnormal. A freezing spell in the middle of summer would certainly not be abnormal. A tsunami could not be considered abnormal, nor 40 feet of rain in an hour. Why, gosh, when it comes to weather nothing can be abnormal.
The political process will continue.
All the countries in the developed world have ran up huge national debts. if energy costs continue to escalate and electricity becomes unreliable it will be impossible to service these debts and the entire capitatlist system will go belly-up. In my view this is the result that the warmists want, it is fortunate this pause (I think CodeTech is right; it’s a Peak) has occurred when it has.
I think that all measures to limit CO2 production should be stopped unless the global temperatures start to rise (using satellite readings NOT skewed and tampered with, historical readings) for a period of 10 years. In that time we should develop sustainable but reliable sources of energy, because the only thing that i agree with the warmists, is that fossil fuels will not last forever.
And…they hate humans and love polar bears but are too smart to hang out with beloved polar bears who are supposedly starving to death and desperately need food on the hoof since they enjoy tormenting their meals before dining.
There are plenty of global warmists to feed these poor bears and give them hours of amusement.
Fossil fuels will last for the next few hundred years, even at current increase in consumption.
That’s not forever, but in terms of lifetimes, generations and technological advance, it might as well be.
‘the RSS satellite monthly dataset is inexorably driving down the longer-run warming rate,’
Well my ‘model ‘ tells me that before long , following ‘adjustments’, this will no longer be the case, further my ‘model’ suggest that in fact before 30/11/15 it will actually turn out to be ‘worse then we thought ‘
And I would suggest that my models is a lot more accurate than ‘climate models’
Can somebody explain to me why that graph of the RSS temps. since 1997 look lopsided? Whenever I post it to any forum that is the first thing warmists say to me.
Two large volcanoes in the early part of the record (1982 and 1991) and then the 60 cycle in temperatures was cycling up from 1976 to 2000. These two features make the chart look like it was increasing in the early part of the record, but the underlying warming rate is extremely small.
…if real.
This is how I have the lower troposphere satellite temperatures (light blue) versus all the various IPCC/Hansen/Mann climate model predictions (browns and oranges) starting from the date the predictions were made.
http://s11.postimg.org/i2o555moz/RSS_UAH_vs_IPCC_Predictions_Aug_2015.png
What I find more interesting on the RSS graph is that as late as 2012 we have a below zero reading. 33 years after the records began and still getting below zero readings. Wonder when the next one will happen.
The RSS data set shows three temperature trends during the record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss-land/from:1998/trend/plot/rss-land/to:1987/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:1998/trend
The first period showed global temperatures cooling until around the mid-1980’s. The main warming trend then occurred where all CAGW hype come from during the mid-1980’s until 1998. What a bunch of hypocrites as the so called pause is longer than this warming period in the first place. The warming phase using the RSS only lasted 13 years and yet the pause is now over 18 years.
Looking it this way it seem the warming trend was the pause from normal and now the planet is back to a recent normality where it has mainly cooled since the 1940’s. Just the short 13 year warming period distinguishes global temperatures from the 1970’s and the 2000’s.
When a trend lasts longer than a previous one it overrides it as the dominate one. We don’t have a pause any more, it is now the next 30 year plus cooling trend where the peak has now gone. The cooling and warming cycles observed throughout the planets history are resuming normally like they are today.
summer peak sea surface temperature has now passed in the north sea. 6 degrees c , yes 6 c, lower than last summer.coupled with north east atlantic surface temperature dropping like a stone it looks like the uk will be in for an interesting winter.
i strongly suspect there is some very interesting interpretation going on of the data coming from the satellite instruments to support the el nino notion .physical evidence is appearing that all those warm anomalies in the pacific may not be quite as warm as they seem.
i will take the physical evidence over some math nerds algorithm every single time.
Karl et al 2015 did away with the “pause” by creating evidence supporting a steady climb in temperatures. To do that they had to sacrifice some of the warming in the 1990s to add it to this century. The net effect is to claim that warming is still happening, hoping that people won’t notice they’re claiming only about 0.1C° per decade.
At that rate, it will take a couple centuries before we trip that magical 2C° rise and we’ll face our doom. Or whatever it is at that time.
I think the two century figure is a good thing to work into elevator speeches about Karl et al.
Based on RSS even claiming 0.1 c per decade seems too high.
The reason being during the ~30 year warming cycle only 13 years had any significant effect. During the ~30 year cooling cycle the trend per decade will be slightly negative at best.
Therefore at a rate of 0.2 c per decade, like the 13 year warming period, only bit more than a sixth of the full warming and cooling cycle showed this maximum rate. Hence over ~ 60 year period the trend per decade would only be about 0.043 c if using the cooling period being zero per decade.
My view is only see about 0.2 c /0.3 c rise by 2100 at the best, depending how quiet the solar activity over this period becomes. This is partly because over the next century they will likely be only one more warming cycle of about 30 years. (even this is dependent on future solar activity)
Theyve just reoriented their angle of attack. Instead of massive multi-degree warming causing certain devastation, theyve changed their tune to 1d warming causing all (and more) of the devastation that 4 or 6d was expected to cause. This lets them keep up their flagging narrative, but makes the indefensible hockey stick meme even more important. IE- our climate is naturally static and never ever strays more than about 1dC. This is obviously a bigger fairy tale than the original claim, but its easier to muck with the past than to fight the pause that seems so stubborn.
You realize, don’t you, that the purpose of Karl et al 2015 was to just do away with “the pause.” The lower rate of change will be ignored or forgotten. The original warnings of increasing temperatures will be retained and matched up with “the pause is gone” in the media. Rational, smational.
Yes, Karl et al does away with the pause, much as Mann et al did away with the Little Ice age. The difference is that it took a climate skeptic (or at least someone inquisitive) to expose Mann. Karl tossed Mann under the bus without even an apology.
My point is that we don’t need to use “our” data to say warming isn’t a problem now, we can use the warmist’s own data to show by their reckoning the current warming isn’t a problem now. After making that point, then we can mention that there hasn’t been any warming this century. Karl isn’t going to point out current warming isn’t a problem, we’ll have to help out with that.
Since the end of the LIA, have we not had a couple of “pause” times or even slight downturns? The only thing that really makes this one (assuming warming continues) different is that it does not agree with the projections/predictions of those who claim human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of a warming atmosphere.
A bit inconvenient that while we pump increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the atmospheric temperature doesn’t rise, isn’t it?
Since the LIA there have been no pause periods above 8 years. Any pause from warming periods longer than 8 years have lead to 30-40 year cooling trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
“The UAH and RSS satellite data both show the Pause, though the terrestrial tamperature datasets have all been altered in the past year with the effect of concealing it.”
I wonder how those investigations into data tampering are going – I heard about it a few months ago, but it all seems to have gone quiet. Nice use of a spelling mistake, BTW!
Hopefully, the people investingating it are just building up to a proper show-stopper in time for the Paris-ites’ next big fossil fuel-powered knees-up in December…
I agree. We should spread this new word ‘tamperature’ far and wide for it is most appropriate when discussing ‘climate scientists’ who mess around with the data endlessly to create false narratives.
They might have a tamper tantrum.
Splendid post!
This comment is a repetition of one I posted on Climate Etc. last week.
As an exercise in examining the interactions which occur among public policy matters and scientific matters, let’s take a quick look at a hypothetical scenario where the HadCRUT4 central temperature trend between 1998 and 2028 runs at +0.12 degrees C per decade; i.e., at roughly half the rate predicted by an average of 90 IPCC AR5 climate models.
The temperature extrapolation which forms the basis for this scenario is illustrated on the following graphic. It is derived, adapted, and extended from one produced by Dr. Roy Spencer.
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/Beta-Blockers-HadCRUT4-Scenario-1998-2028_zpsdlntpgou.png
Here are two questions concerning the implications of this scenario, if it were to occur approximately as illustrated on the above graph:
(1) Are the IPCC AR5 climate models verified — for all practical purposes, as viewed by mainstream climate scientists — if the postulated scenario occurs approximately as illustrated?
(2) Does a contentious debate over what to do about climate change continue unabated into the middle of the 21st Century, if the postulated scenario occurs approximately as illustrated?
Lord Monckton, in your opinion, (and please be fair!) is there actually ANYTHING of substance that alarmists have got right? Their projections aren’t right, thus it follows their climate sensitivity calls aren’t right either. If they’ve got both those things wrong then – and they have, then what else is there that’s material to AGW theory that they have got right?
A straight line trend through that data (graph in this post) is meaningless as are all the trends line in RSS or UHA data for that matter. Dr Spencer used to have a best fit curve which was to my mind the appropriate “trend” ie no warming with the beginnings of a down trend.
The question with the pause is not weather the global temperature has peaked but whether alarmists hallucinatory acid trip has peaked.
The Pause that Refreshes!
“The Pause that Refreshes!”
And the Cause that Represses.
Authors and commenters here routinely argue that you can’t measure global surface temperature to a tenth of a degree and thus all of the temperature records that are being broken monthly are meaningless, but here you are arguing that the observations are 0.2 degrees below the model predictions? I guess we can measure with that kind of precision when it fits your narrative. I notice that you conveniently left off 2013 and 2014 in your comparison chart as they are hotter than 2012. I guess “the great pause” has moved up its official start date again as well. Please stop arguing that you don’t cherry pick the start date and it is “calculated” based on the trend. Everyone knows that is a gross misuse of statistics and the reason it works so well is that you have a nice global temperature spike due to the 97 El Nino to play with. The old saying, “you can prove anything with statistics” rings true once again.
Your claim is baseless, the satellite data are not the ones that are broken monthly and meaningless. There is no cherry picking when the starting period is always current. Adding 2013 and 2014 makes very little difference to the overall picture.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss-land/from:2001/trend/plot/rss-land/to:1987/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:1998/trend
The El Nino was almost cancelled out with a strong La Nina after it and the cooling of global temperatures occurs with or without the corresponding El Nino and La Nina.
Even extending the trend a bit before the El Nino still shows global cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend/plot/rss-land/to:1987/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:1998/trend
In the interest of accuracy, it is not that the “observations” are below the modeled scenarios, but rather that the “adjusted” temperature anomaly calculations are diverging from all of the modeled scenarios. The surface temperature anomaly calculations are all based on selected, estimated temperatures.
pd2413, in your opinion, has the rate of increase in global mean temperature slowed over the past fifteen years in comparison with the period of 1975 through 2000?
pd2413, in your opinion, has the rate of increase in global mean temperature which has occurred over the last fifteen years slowed in comparison with the rate that occurred between 1975 and 2000?
pd2413 says:
I notice that you conveniently left off 2013 and 2014 in your comparison chart as they are hotter than 2012.
I notice that you conveniently left off all the years that were warmer than 2012, 2013, and 2014:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
PD,
No real records are being broken. GISS, NOAA and HadCRU are just faking the “data” ever more shamelessly.
The flatline linear regression starts before the super El Nino of ’97.
It won’t take many years of continued slight cooling for the anomaly to drop to no degrees C warming since 1979.
2013 & 2014 are ‘hotter’ than 2012 ?
Explain to me what is ‘hot’ about 14.6C
Thanks.
pd2413 is incorrect in its assumptiomn that the spike caused by the 1998 el Nino is the reason for the zero trend in the satellite temperature data. The statistical influence of that spike on the trend is more or less exactly canceled by the 2010 el Nino spike. Without both spikes, the trend would still be zero, or very close to it.
It is entirely legitimate to ask the question how far one can go back in the data and still obtain a zero trend. The fact that the trend is lengthening is entirely at odds with the predictions, which assume that the greater part of the influence of a radiative forcing on global temperature will occur within the decades following the forcing.
Accordingly, it is remarkable that, even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all throughout the period since then. This ever widening discrepancy between prediction and reality does raise legitimate questions about whether the models are overstating climate sensitivity.
There are legitimate questions about model predictions that should be and are be asked. No climate scientist will pretend that the models are perfect. But you choose to focus on one data set (or two if you want to include UAH), while ignoring all the other temperature records which show continuous warming. We don’t need to debate that part though because you believe those temperatures are faked anyway. I find it interesting that the surface temperature record is ignored when it comes to the pause but then you compare HADCRUT4 to the models when they don’t even measure/calculate the same thing. You can’t simultaneously ignore the surface temperature data sets when arguing for a pause and then use them to argue against the validity of climate models.
While what you have done with the zero trend is technically statistically correct you do benefit from the 98 El Nino. It’s just as easy to show a positive trend (albeit small) by starting in 1999. In both cases it is a tenuous (at best) use of statistics.
pd2413:
You say to Lord Monckton
Nothing is “perfect”. At issue is whether the models are fit for purpose.
In consideration of this issue it is reasonable to compare the models projections to the global temperature data sets which are rarely altered. Those data sets are the RSS and UAH data sets obtained from measurements obtained by use of microwave sounding units (MSUs) mounted on satellites.
There is no agreed definition of average global temperature and the teams who provide surface temperature data sets from temperature measurements based on thermometer readings mostly made at weather stations (i.e.the data sets which you say “show continuous warming” each uses a unique definition of global temperature and changes the definition it uses almost every month. Hence those data sets change almost every month.
This frequent alteration of data from decades long ago has this effect. And this alteration of data is only possible because there is no agreed definition of the metric these data sets purport to be indicating, and there is no possibility of calibration standards for the metric.
I commend you to read this especially its Appendix B for explanation of these matters.
For the reasons I have stated here, the RSS and UAH data sets are the only appropriate data sets for assessment of the climate models. And they, too, have the problem of lack of a possible calibration standard for global temperature.
Richard
“For the reasons I have stated here, the RSS and UAH data sets are the only appropriate data sets for assessment of the climate models. And they, too, have the problem of lack of a possible calibration standard for global temperature.”
They are checked with balloon data to keep calibration standard and because they cover huge areas of the planet with the exception of parts of the poles there is nothing that comes even close. The so called climate scientists not using this data says a lot about their agenda then it does the science. Any scientist worth his/her weight in gold would used this standard always.
Even if the standard was only good as a surface station it annihilates just ~7000-4000 points scattered on the planet. The size of the Earth compared to measuring just 400000-700000 m2. (100 m2 per station is generous) Temperatures at the surface can be a lot different just 5 miles away, never mind the limitations with lack of coverage from surface data sets.
I like the way pd2413 prefers cooked data to real data.
Whatever it takes to make the data support the theory I guess.
pd2413 and Christopher Monckton are both correct in their assertions:
pd2413 says that the start date of the Pause in 1997 depends strongly on the large el Nino in 1998. Sure enough, if you replace 1998’s anomalies with those of 1997, the start date of the Pause jumps forward to 2000
But then Monckton replies that it is balanced by the el Nino of 2010, and, lo and behold, if you take this one out as well, the Pause reappears in 1997 (or even 1996, depending on what exactly you replace it with), in both RSS and UAH
But this is just an acacdemic exercise to illustrate the way the least-squares method of fitting a trend-line works. The el Ninos DID happen, and the trend line takes them into account.
One consequence of the 1998 el Nino will be seen next year sometime, unless there is some modest cooling in the next few months. The start date of the Pause will remain in 1997 (December 1997 has the best chance of surviving), but when (or if) that trend is no longer negative, all remaining possible start dates for the Pause will also have disappeared. The Start of the Pause won’t jump forward to 2000 or 2001. It will vanish.
This is especially true for UAH – RSS is slightly more resilient.
The El Nino was in 1998, a year after the beginning of the pause.
Is there anything you ‘know’ that is actually correct?
As to 2013 and 2014 being warmer than 2012, even if was true, so what, the pause continues to the present, regardless.
The El Nino began in the spring of 1997 (not long after your previous pause now begins). As I stated before you can run a linear trend from 1999 to present and get a small positive trend. My point being that the pause is largely a product of a massive El Nino. But you chose to ignore that point because it was correct. I also never said that we should not use satellite data. But I hope you recognize that even satellite data is highly adjusted and not nearly as straightforward as you are trying to make it sound. There has no doubt been a slowdown in global temperature increases in the past 15 or so years. Again this is not disputed. It also doesn’t mean that nothing is happening as the ocean heat content continues to rise, glaciers continue to melt, and the stratosphere continues to cool (all signs of a GHG induced warming).
My original point way back was that I find it funny that one week you are all decrying the surface temperature records as fake and stating that its impossible to measure global temperature to within a tenth of a degree (note that I wouldn’t really argue with the latter), and the next week you are using the surface temperature records to complain that the models are several tenths of a degree off from the observations. You can’t have it both ways.
pd2413 says:
My point being that the pause is largely a product of a massive El Nino.
Almost twenty years after that el Nino?? That’s real desperation.
And:
There has no doubt been a slowdown in global temperature increases in the past 15 or so years. Again this is not disputed.
Wake up! Of course that is being disputed! It is disputed by real world evidence. There isn’t a “slowdown in global temperature increases”. Global warming stopped almost 20 years ago. Even the IPCC now admits to the long term “pause” in rising temperatures. “Pause” = “stopped”.
And:
…the ocean heat content continues to rise, glaciers continue to melt, and the stratosphere continues to cool (all signs of a GHG induced warming).
There is no arguing with religious true believers. But for rational readers: if these are “signs” of global warming caused by the rise in CO2, then once again I challenge ‘pd’ or anyone else to produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement that quantifies the amount of global warming caused by X amount of rising CO2.
No one has ever measured the fraction of man-made global warming out of total warming from all causes, such as the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA. Therefore, everything said about it is simply an assertion.
The whole “dangerous AGW” scare is based on nothing more than opinions. There are no supporting measurements. At this stage, the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is no more or less than a HOAX on the taxpaying public; a giant head fake based on nothing more than mostly paid for opinions.
For a long time, many of the TV-watching public would just head-nod along with the assertions of talking heads on the nightly news, accepting whatever they said without any critical thought.
Those days are ending. Even a few years ago many readers’ comments under media stories about “global warming” and “climate change” expressed concern about the alarm.
But no more. Now when there are wild-eyed stories about “climate change” this, and “climate change” that, most of the comments ridicule the alarmism. There are fewer supporters of that bogus narrative every day. After endlessly crying “WOLF!!” without seeing any global warming for nearly twenty years, the public is finally starting to turn on the climate alarmist crowd.
And once they lose the public, they will never get them back again. Every day there are fewer and fewer ‘pd2413’s’ who still believe the “dangerous man-made global warming” nonsense. It’s so obvious a scam that only those with a heavy emotional investment in the scare still try to sell others on it.
dbstealey said: “…such as the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA.”
There is no such thing as a natural recovery, emphasis on the word recovery. The planet is a state system that responds to internal (such as volcanoes) and external (such as orbital changes or changes in incoming solar radiation) forcings. If the net impact of those forcings is enough to cause warming, then the planet will warm. If not, it will stay cool or get colder. The planet does not “want” to be at a certain temperature.
Chris
You assert
“There is no such thing as a natural recovery,”??!!! ”
Say what?
What do you think is “natural” if internal (such as volcanoes) and external (such as orbital changes or changes in incoming solar radiation) forcings” are not “natural”?
What unnatural effects are you claiming cause the LIA and the recovery from it?
Unicorns? The whims of the Gods on Mount Olympus? Humans with time machines?
The LIA and the start of recovery from it, transitions between glacial and intergl;acial periods, and many other climate changes occurred long before humans could have been causative of them: they were “natural”. And there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – which suggests the repeatedly precedented Present Warm Period is not “natural”.
Richard
Richard, it is not a recovery, it is a change. Recovery implies returning to a normal state. The planet has had periods of millions of years at much warmer, and colder temperatures, than those of today. What makes the temperatures of the last several hundred years the norm for the planet?
Chris says:
There is no such thing as a natural recovery…
Richard Courtney is right, Chris, it’s all natural as far as anyone knows. But if you prefer, you can use the term ‘rebound’. The planet is naturally rebounding from one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,000+ year Holocene climate that we are currently in.
You’re just splitting hairs by complaining about which term to use. We are far from knowing everything about forcings, feedbacks, and/or other causes of global temperature fluctuations. But according to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct explanation: the planet has a preferred temperature range, and we are in the colder end of that range. There is no need for an extraneous explanation, such as CO2.
Yes, CO2 has an effect. But it is minuscule at current concentrations of ≈400 ppm. The warming effect of CO2 can be completely disregarded now, since almost all of it occurred below the first few dozen ppm:
The whole ‘carbon’ argument is a tempest in a teapot, useful only for scaring the public into opening its collective wallets. Ask yourself, “Cui bono?” and you will find the answer.
When viewed in perspective, all the wild-eyed arm waving, running around in circles and clucking that the sky is falling is nothing but climate alarmism:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
statistics are not even half as obliging as the mathturbation and alogorerithms used by people claiming to be climate scientists . get them to go and physically measure some shit instead of extrapolating bollocks from a desk to create even more bollocks and they may be worth listening too. virtually every piece of “data” used by both sides is meaningless crap these days,so much spin and manipulation on both sides the entire debate is laughable. it is plain to see for everyone that any notion the world is warming catastrophically as a result of anthropogenic co2 has been dispelled .