Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.
“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.
“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.
“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.
Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.
At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.
What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You can’t find such a thing. You can find estimations based on proxies, but I’m not convinced of any claimed accuracy from those. Add in the fact that there is no “global temperature”, anything claimed to be derived from such (average, mean, anomaly, etc) is a complete fantasy.
Anthony Watts, on February 26, 2013 at 7:02 am, in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233072
wrote:
You have not proven anything, you are just asserting. I did click through the links. And no, I didn’t find any scientific reference for the figure you have shown here. And this link, which one also could find from one of the other opinion articles,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/
is just another opinion article on your blog again, written by someone named Bill Illis (never heard about him before). This article contains a somewhat modified version of the graphic you presented, but still no scientific reference for it.
Of course you could. Hansen’s non-peer-reviewed elaboration on his own blog are opinion articles, nothing else. The scientific references he uses are not mere opinion articles, though.
Since I do not recall to have presented any of Hansens’s opinions he lays out in his blog as scientific references, what was the purpose of your tu quoque argument?
Despite being unsatisfied if I only get provided links to opinion articles, which present something without any references, as if an assertion could be backed up with something where someone else merely makes the same assertion, I even more question the reliability of the elaborations by someone (Archibald) whose opinion is presented as reference, but who makes such blatantly false claims on an alleged “climate conference”, where not even anyone seems to mind.
I did not question the logarithmic relationship between CO2 change and temperature change. I know it is logarithmic. I asked where the formula “4.7ln(CO2) – 26.9” in the graphic comes from and why it is annotated with “Global Warming Models”. At some other place in the same graphic it is described as “Warming Model Formula”. Why is that?
Does everybody know why our very own Railroader, Dr Pachauri is going quiet on CAGW? It’s because there’s an election in Australia later on this year! We are very important to his and his Organisation’s plans for World Domination!! We must elect his friend, Miss Juliar Gillard, to the top job again so that she can make more debt for us to pay back and waste it on “combating” Global (non-existent) Climate Change. Well, we’ll see who’s laughing after the end of the Election! I think the People shall make her very sorry for the lies she has told.
The Liberal Party is not too bad but they’ve been hoodwinked by this as well. Anything though to S.T.S.(silence the Socialists). @Graham W, we will all die of course but they want to accelerate it. We who are reasonable should clamor from the rooftops that these Mongrel Dogs should not be believed but how long will that work for? No doubt our children are being brainwashed into being good little obedient automaton’s and believe what the Teacher say’s. There will be blood in the streets when this finally comes to a head. HFTC.
Jeff Alberts, on February 26, 2013 at 7:34 am, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233095
wrote:
Why would that be a “fantasy”? Because you postulate it was? The globally averaged temperature, e.g., near surface, or of the troposphere, is a very useful statistical metric to approximately diagnose the thermodynamic state of the component for which this metric is applied.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 26, 2013 at 5:41 am
I want to make sure that I understand you correctly.
My purposes are at least two fold. I think it is fairer to say a slope is 0 than to say a slope could be 0 at a certain level of significance, but that it could also be much higher at the higher end.
But secondly, by stating when a slope is 0, I can say if the models are good according to NOAA.
PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
So I admit that Hadcrut4 does NOT meet this criteria yet, but three other data sets do. See the bolded ones below.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since March 2001 or 11 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to December.)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month.
@Werner Brozek / February 26, 2013 at 8:42 am
thank you for correcting the “17” year standstill from the headline
@ur momisugly crabby1 / February 26, 2013 at 8:11 am
I am sorry, crabby 1, get lost: there will be no “world domination” by Julia Gillard before you are dead and buried;
@ur momisugly Jeff Alberts says / February 26, 2013 at 7:34 am
in the post February 25, 2013 at 10:30 pm there are estimates ranging from – 0,4 for 280 ppm to 1.85 for doubling;
I am just asking from the specialists here to explain me the position of the Last Glacial Maximum in this graph, thats all ;
@ur momisugly REPLY: That isn’t my reply, but the reply of one of my moderators. See comment below this – Anthony
I dont care who replies, I dont know you nor your moderator;
I just see an interesting graph and have a question;
are you for some reason avoiding the answer?
Martin van Etten says:
“CO2 can be harmfull when it leads to higher temperatures an and higher sea levels”
Ah. I see your problem. You believe the “carbon” propaganda. Let me help:
There is no empirical, testable evidence that CO2 causes global harm. None. That is a scientifically baseless assertion. No global harm has ever been directly connected to the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is ‘harmless’.
Further, CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. There are mountains of verifiable evidence proving that fact. Tens of thousands of professional scientists have explicitly stated in writing that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial.
Finally, the planet has been much warmer at times in the past. The current global temperature is about 14ºC. The planet has been ten degrees warmer, with no ill effects. During those warmer episodes the biosphere teemed with life and diversity. And at the same time, CO2 was much higher than now. Again, with no ill effects.
You have the choice of believing the pseudo-scientific nonsense asserted by self-serving alarmist propagandists — or you can use the scientific method to weed out their nonsense.
When there is zero scientific evidence for a claim, your best course of action is to ignore such claims. If I told you there was a black cat sitting under your bed, but you could find no evidence of it, would you still believe me? It’s the same thing with assertions of global harm due to CO2. There is zero testable scientific evidence of any global harm due to CO2, so why would you still believe such a story?
Martin van Etten says:
February 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm
@ur momisugly REPLY: That isn’t my reply, but the reply of one of my moderators. See comment below this – Anthony
I dont care who replies, I dont know you nor your moderator;
I just see an interesting graph and have a question;
are you for some reason avoiding the answer?
————————————————–
You mention difficulty with English in an earlier post, so perhaps this is an excusable misunderstanding. Unless I am badly mistaken, Anthony was explaining that you were in fact exchanging posts with one of his moderators, and your answer was:
Again, perhaps this is excusable due to the language barrier and difference in idiom, but I believe you ought to be aware that the query ‘are you for some reason avoiding the answer?’ is a somewhat rude way to phrase the question in English.
Martin van Etten says:
“are you for some reason avoiding the answer?”
I suspect that van Etten would refuse to accept any answer given by Anthony, so it is probably a waste of time responding. Also, people tend to dislike being assigned homework.
A characteristic common to people like van Etten, Perlwitz, and Shehan is their refusal to accept reality. Their consternation comes from the fact that the planet is acting contrary to their alarmist narrative. They keep trying to explain it away, but we can see they are just blowing smoke.
At what point would any of them admit that their CO2=CAGW conjecture has been falsified? IMHO, they could never bring themselves to admit it under any circumstances. Religious belief is that strong.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:00 pm
At what point would any of them admit that their CO2=CAGW conjecture has been falsified? IMHO, they could never bring themselves to admit it under any circumstances. Religious belief is that strong.
————————————
Funny you should mention it. I was thinking this exactly earlier in reviewing Jan’s comments; religious conviction. When Werner Brozek actually does the math to critically examine the data, Jan’s comment is What for? To study the properties of the noise in the temperature series on short time intervals, before the signal becomes statistically significant?. Knowing perfectly well that the NOAA 2008 State of the Climate Report says in the middle of page 23 clear as day that an observed absence of warming of 15 yrs or more creates a discrepancy with the expected warming rate, all he can put forward is ‘this assertion by Monckton about such a statement in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report 2008, which he uses to construct a contradiction between Pachauri’s alleged statement and this report, and to assert that the recent temperature record would indicate a discrepancy between “models and measured reality” is a (deliberate?) falsehood. There is no such statement made in the NOAA Report. What other conclusion can be drawn, except that we are witnessing an expression of religious belief?
Religious conviction instead of skepticism from this alleged scientist.
Pathetic.
Regards Stealey.
Jeff Alberts:
Sorry for a certain amount of confusion in my terminology of “long term” in my post at Philip Shehan says: February 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm .
I was writing about the question of what were the time periods for which a linear approximation of temperature trends with time could be considered valid., and I used long term in different contexts of time periods.
In one context I referred to non linear trends such as “the long and very long term (geologic data).” That is, trends over thousands and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years . On these time scales temperature changes vary due to long term effects such as orbital variations etc cause large scale changes in temperature producing ice ages and interglacials etc.
What the AGW debate is concerned with is the period since the beginning of large scale industrialisation, from about the middle of the 19th century forward, when geologic forcings operating over millenia can be considered to be constant.
It was in that context of about 160 years that I used “long term’ to mean periods of a number of decades when linear regression alaysis provides a good fit of the data. They are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level and trends from the various temperature data sets are in very good agreement.
I contrast that with “short” periods of less than a couple of decades where linear fits are not statistically significant and calculated trends vary from data set to data set due to the low signal to noise level.
I also noted that for the entire 160 year industrial period, the linear fits fail because the signal to noise becomes sufficiently high for an underlying accelerating trend to assert itself.
Er, is this article even accurate?
I was just about to cite it in a debate over at Jo Nova’s with a (well-mannered, fairly rational) warmist, but then I googled it quickly, and found this piece at Skeptical Science:
Did Murdoch’s The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Well, it’s kind of important — is this paraphrase of Pachauri true?
REPLY: Don’t cite “Skeptical Science” as a source, as they have a proven propensity for being fast and loose with spinning the truth to suit their agenda. I advise looking anywhere else. I would think that if Pachauri was misquoted, we’d see a statement from the IPCC web page or Pachauri via another news outlet. So far, I’ve seen nothing credible that indicates he feels he was misquoted. -Anthony
Anthony, I know your feelings about that website. So I will rewrite my comment without using them as a source.
Pachauri’s communication office have not confirmed that The Australian’s recent article where Pauchari was paraphrased as saying, “THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,” accurately reflect his views. Pachauri has stated that warming is occurring on numerous other occasions. The Australian has not provided a transcript or recording of the interview.
The article in question was written by Graham Lloyd. The Australian has previously had to retract one of Lloyd’s pieces for allegedly getting wrong the views of Australian sea level scientist, John Church, although Lloyd maintains that he didn’t misrepresent Church’s statements.
How do we know that Pachauri has been accurately represented and that this story has truth behind it?
REPLY: My view is: if Pachauri complains directly, or we see a statement from the IPCC website about this being “out of context” or some similar language, then we might have reason to suspect the view was not accurate. Just becuase the wunderkinds at SkS are upset means nothing at all – Anthony
When I read your reply to my 11:34 pm, it said it was still in moderation, so I didn’t think you were allowing it through. That’s why I rewrote the comment.
I understand your reply.
I’ve been talking about Pachauri’s 17-year pause acknowledgement since I first heard about it. Now it is an open question in my mind about whether he said that. And even if his office denies it, I still think he might have said it. But now I don’t know and can’t rely on the article, unfortunately.
So citing Pachauri in my debate with the warmist at Jo Nova’s, to contradict his statement about warming for the last 10 years, is out. lol
I have examined the references supplied by Mr Watts in response to my query as to the theory and the models behind the graph he supplied in response to my comment
Philip Shehan says:
February 25, 2013 at 10:30 pm
The kind of information I was looking for, the dependence of temperature on CO2 concentration is given in this plot. (The forcing parameter Watts per meter squared is directly proportional to the temperature):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png
(I accept the validity of the equation given on the graph at face value)
This graph covers a range that is much too large to clearly examine the concentrations we are interested in, those that existed before the industrial revolution (about 280 ppm) to the present and for a few multiples of the present concentration. This graph covers shows that more restricted period more closely:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg
The period from the pre industrial period to the present CO2 concentration (390 ppm) is right at the beginning of the plot, covering about the first division on the horizontal axis.
The question I raised in response to Werner was whether we were we on the logarithmic curve such that further increases of 2 or 3 times the current CO2 concentration with further industrial emissions would enter that part of the curve where it plateaus, approaching the horizontal. In that case further increases in CO2 make little difference to the temperature.
The plot shows we are nowhere near that part of the graph. Doubling or tripling or quadrupling the current CO2 concentration will result in a significant increase in temperature.
@ur momisugly Christoph Dollis / February 27, 2013 at 12:03 am
“And even if his office denies it, I still think he might have said it.”
J**** so I can make news too;
@ur momisugly Christoph Dollis / February 26, 2013 at 11:34 pm
“So far, I’ve seen nothing credible that indicates he feels he was misquoted. -Anthony”
here Christoph Dollis is correct:
“Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. [emphasis mine]”
its just a matter of looking where the quatation marks are;
personally I was very angry with Mr Pachauri admitting this so called 17 year warming pause, but in reading better I saw see that it is just the parafrasing from Llyd;
some manipulating you can expect from himand others by the way because this sentence has done its spinning work;
[snip. Use of “denial” or any root word of denial violates site Policy. — mod.]
Mark Bofill / February 26, 2013 at 6:41 pm
“Again, perhaps this is excusable due to the language barrier and difference in idiom, but I believe you ought to be aware that the query ‘are you for some reason avoiding the answer?’ is a somewhat rude way to phrase the question in English.”
please do a suggesting for a refrasing
sorry: please do a suggestion for a rephrasing
@ur momisugly Mark Bofill February 26, 2013 at 6:41 pm
“You can’t find such a thing. You can find estimations based on proxies, but I’m not convinced of any claimed accuracy from those. Add in the fact that there is no “global temperature”, anything claimed to be derived from such (average, mean, anomaly, etc) is a complete fantasy.”
we are talking about the last glacial maximum temperature and CO2 level, isn’t it?
why is that point different than the purple arrows in the graph (Philip Shehan / February 25, 2013 at 10:30 pm) you have been presenting;
this logarithmic relation should be there also in the LGM, or am I wrong?
if it is correct for now, it should be correct also in these earlier days?
[timeout]