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.
A “troll” according to the definition by Monckton is: Anyone who dares to contradict his drivel.
Pachuari and Monckton are in agreement that it has not warmed for 17 years. They are both mistaken.
Five global temperature data show a warming trend over the last 17 years. Due to the noise for short periods, there is some variation in the warming rate, although going back to 1960 all 5 data sets are in excellent agreement:
GISS, Had3, Had4 RSS, UAH from 1960.
0.139 ±0.073 °C/decade
0.132 ±0.026 °C/decade
0.132 ±0.024 °C/decade
0.132 ±0.072 °C/decade
0.139 ±0.073 °C/decade
The Hadcrut 4 data set represents the median of the five for the last 17 years and is presented in this graph, with the 17year trends for the others superimposed without offset correction.
http://tinyurl.com/a27y4x3
As I have pointed out, 17 year data sets are unreliable as arepresentation of the long term trends. Moncktom suggests we should look back 60 years or so.
The following is a graph of Hadcrut4 temperatures from 1945 to the present. The long term warming trend is
0.094 ±0.019 °C/decade (2σ)
Breaking that period up into four 17 year periods shows just how unreliable a 17 year period is as a representative of the long term trend, but by chance, the last 17 years are in excellent agreement with the long term trend.
http://tinyurl.com/bzpzzcl
17yr periods since 1945 Had4:
‘96-2013 0.091 ±0.120 °C/decade
‘79 –‘96 0.119 ±0.116 °C/decade
‘62 –‘79 -0.025 ±0.125 °C/decade
‘45’- ‘62 0.013 ±0.137 °C/decade
Jan Perlwitz said:
“And exactly this conclusion drawn by Monckton and, as is seems, by “skeptics” in general is not scientifically valid, when it is based on a lack of statistical significance of the trend estimate. A failure to reject the Null-hypothesis (Zero-trend) for a given probability threshold does not falsify the alternative hypothesis (presence of a trend), since it cannot be excluded the possibility that this lack of statistical significance is just coming from fluctuations in the limited data set, which are masking the trend that can be seen in the extended time series. Non-detectability of a trend is not the same as absence of a trend.”
Jan Perlwitz is mistaken. When the trend is expected and has been identified with attribution already, said to be clearly standing out, and then that trend disappears, it does mean abscence of trend.
It’s not as if the situation were a person listening for a special worm fart from 1000 miles away, Jan. Remember, they even had the anthro signal firmly by the throat.
What a joker you turn out to be, Jan!.
As usual, I have to point out that Shehan is cherry-picking from 1960.
Here is the no-warming data since the year 2000.
And here we have the data record since 1995.
Just to show I am not a cherry-picker, here is the data for the past decade.
This shows the past decade and a half.
And the green trend line here shows the past sixteen years of declining temperatures.
This shows the declining temperature trend overlaid with the rising CO2 concentration, confirming that CO2 causes no measurable global warming. At this point, only religious True Believers believe the discredited and debunked CO2=CAGW nonsense.
Here we have another view of CO2 vs flat temperatures over 17 years.
Satellite data is the most accurate global temperature data, and it confirms what Pachauri, Trenberth, Hansen, Monckton, and what every honest commentator are now saying.
Even arch-alarmist Phil Jones shows that the periodic temperature rises, as the planet naturally recovers from the Little Ice Age, have nothing to do with CO2. Note that the step rises were exactly the same, whether CO2 was low, or high, proving that any effect from CO2 is too small to measure. Here is another view from a different start date, to show that these charts are not cherry-picks.
Here we have a 30-year chart from another data source, to avoid Shehan-style cherry-picking. Note that the trend changed about 17 years ago. By cherry-picking start dates, it can be decptively claimed that global warming is continuing. Bu looking closer, we see that we’ve gone over the hump. More importantly, we see that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature — the central claim of the climate alarmist contingent. Their claim has been shown to be flat wrong.
In fact, there was coincidental correlation between CO2 and temperature only from around 1980 to 1997. And at all times, changes in CO2 followed changes in temperature. Thus, ∆T causes ∆CO2, not vice-versa, on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia.
I have dozens of similar charts, all of them showing that the “carbon” scare is debunked nonsense. Even Hansen and Pachauri now admit that global warming has stalled, and only cognitive dissonant-afflicted True Believers try to convince folks otherwise.
Someone who insists on displaying carefully selected short term data sets accuses me of cherry picking.
As for the correlation of temperature with CO2, here is a view from the beginning of the collection of Muana Loa data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise/scale:0.75/offset:0.2
Shehan,
You clearly don’t understand the difference between correlation and an overlay. That chart you fabricated is just an overlay. It does not show the fact that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
This shows correlation.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 24, 2013 at 1:29 pm
A “troll” according to the definition by Monckton is: Anyone who dares to contradict his drivel.
========================================
Thanks for the condensed version of your screed.
It really saved time.
John Whitman, on February 24, 2013 at 10:39 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1231809
wrote:
Yes. It’s absurd conspiracy fantasy nonsense. But I understand why many (most?) “skeptics” are delving into the conspiracy fantasy crap. How else do you reconcile that your belief system is in full contradiction to a whole body of research in a scientific field? There must be some omnipotent global conspiracy of sinister forces behind it, who is controlling the whole field of science, involving thousands of climate scientists from all over the world, who agree with the paradigm of anthropogenically caused global warming, also generally the scientific academies all over the world, as well as the editorial boards of the international scientific specialist publications in the field. All controlled by some central cabal. And that this vast conspiracy still hasn’t blown up after several decades of promoting the “AGW hoax”, that there haven’t been any whistle blowers yet gone public of those people who have been involved in the conspiracy, only proves how powerful this conspiracy is. Every whistle blower has probably been vanished without any trace. All records about their existence erased.
u.k.(us) says:
“Thanks for the condensed version of your screed.
It really saved time.”
LOL, I couldn’t read it, either. Someone please hand Perlwitz a hanky, he’s about to burst into tears complaining about that mean ol’ Lord Monckton.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 24, 2013 at 7:32 pm
=============
Good to see you back 🙂
– – – – – – – – – – –
Jan P Perlwitz,
Thanks for your comment / opinion.
No conspiracy at all.
The obvious and publically known migration (intellectually or physically) of individuals toward their perception of a leadership nexus of their ideology is not conspiracy. People supporting the central non-scientific tenants that the IPCC was founded explicitly on have openly migrated toward the IPCC. People openly migrate toward the NGOs that clearly have a very dominate influence on the IPCC directorate. People openly migrate toward the media who are initiating and maintaining a public crusade on the subject of alarming AGW from CO2. Where is a conspiracy in that? Those are open and publically discussed ideological movements, not conspiracies.
I have no problem with their migrations or ideologies except where they are trying to openly and publically use force to make me live by the dictates of their ideologies. My resistance will never be futile.
WRT alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2, your claim of support by ‘a whole body of research in a scientific field’ is actually the support of a limited partial body of research in the boarder whole field. The broader field does not support alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2, the problematic assessments of the IPCC to the contrary notwithstanding.
John
“Jan Perlwitz is mistaken. When the trend is expected and has been identified with attribution already, said to be clearly standing out, and then that trend disappears, it does mean absence of trend.”
The trend has not disappeared. For the Hadcrut4 data, which is the median of the 5 major global temperature sets for the last 17 years, the trend is in line with the long term trend from 1945.
http://tinyurl.com/a27y4x3
That the 17 year period lacks statistical significance within the 95% confidence limit is due to that fact that the noise over the short periods swamps the signal. As it does for every consecutive 17 year period since 1945, except for the period 1979 to 1996 and then only to the third decimal point.
Monckton himself says that long term time periods should be looked at, and wants to examine data back to 1950.
So you can look at the data from 1945 chopped into consecutive 17 year bits and claim the data tell you nothing whatever temperature has been doing since then because the noise over each of those periods swamps the signal, or you can do the mathematically correct thing and look at the entire data set.
Those who have suddenly discovered statistical significance are ignoring the first rule of statistics. You must have a large enough sample size to say anything meaningful.
And statistical significance cuts both ways. If the last 17 years says that there is no frquentist “statistically significant” evidence for warming, there is no statistically significant evidence that warming has stalled, or is any different from the longer term trend. That is the real “null hypothesis”.That there has been no change in the last 17 years.
Furthermore, what is called “frequentist or “Fisherian” statistical significance is a very high bar scientists set themselves.
It means that there must be a 95% chance or better that the trend is real. A trend of 94.9% is not “statistically significant” but most people would think a 94% or 90% chance of an occurrence is a pretty high level of probability.
In fact frequentist statistics is not the only game in town, and in the last decade many scientists on a number of fields have been moving towards what they consider a more realistic and useful statistical approach – Bayesian statistics. This is particularly useful in that the probability of a particular event is informed by prior knowledge of the system.
We can estimate the warming probability for the last 17 years from the fact that the statistically significant range for the Hadcrut4 data is
0.091 ±0.120 °C/decade
That is, there is a 95% probability that the real trend is between 0.211 and -.029 °C/decade,
So 88% of that range lies on the warming side of the ledger. Or an 88% chance that the true trend is for warming.
Now, 88% is a pretty high probability even as it stands.
Given that the trend for the last half century prior to or up to and including the last 17 years show a warming trend at the frequentist level of significance, a Bayesian analysis of the data would put the probability of warming even higher.
Philip Shehan says:
February 24, 2013 at 4:49 pm
The following is a graph of Hadcrut4 temperatures from 1945 to the present. The long term warming trend is
0.094 ±0.019 °C/decade (2σ)
Since we have gone up 0.8 C since 1750, and since it is apparently dangerous for us to go up 2 C, at 0.094/decade, it would take another 128 years to reach the 2 C. (I do not believe 2 C would be dangerous, but that is a different discussion.) I just cannot figure out why governments should spend billions on things like carbon capture. For all we know, we could be in an ice age by that time! Until the sun comes out of its huge slump, I would not be worried about CO2.
Mr Stealey. It was you who put up a graph of raw Muana Loa data superimposed on raw temperature data.
I responded by doing the same thing, but for a longer time period.
So if my plot is a fabrication I was only following your lead.
The overlay of the data is a correlation. It could be converted into a direct concentration vs temperature plot by factoring out the common time scale. And note that I never claimed a correlation implied causation. So it would not matter which parameter you put on the vertical axis.
Your latest comment posts a graph using the WFT isolate function, which removes the long term trend and leaves the “noise”
The sawtooth pattern in the raw Muana Loa data is due to the seasonal variation in the northern hemisphere which has a far greater land area and deciduous forests. During the warm seasons the plants grow and take CPO2 from the atmosphere. In the winter months CO2 uptake is greatly reduced and CO2 added to the atmosphere by the decay of autumn leaves (and by people burning fuel for warmth.)
That is the “noise” signal you are left with and are comparing.
@ur momisugly Vince Causey February 24, 2013 at 9:26 am
when I see global averaged temperatures compared to trends, it is always to 30-years periods
there is probably a reason, that short time 5, 10, 15 years trends are being avoided by science and professional climatologist
@ur momisugly D.B. Stealey February 23, 2013 at 7:04 am
I was not discussing sea ice extent, I was critisizing Monckton who let this Graham Lloyd garbage pass: “this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth”
for your information there was a record MINIMUM arctic sea ice extent (and volume)
lets be carefull in what we write;
John Whitman, on February 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1232003
About whom are you talking, specifically? What about some names and addresses? And what exactly do those people do? What is this statement, “migrated toward the IPCC”, even supposed to mean?
Again, who are the ones specifically with the “clearly dominate” influence? And what does the “IPCC directorate” do? For instance, who are the ones who write the IPCC Report published every six years? The “IPCC directorate”?
So, now it’s suddenly all “open and publically discussed”, according to you. Well, in contrast, in your previous comment you asserted that there were “ideological creators / organizers” who were driven by a “hidden” motivation and who were basically financing and controlling climate science, people who were as omnipotent that there were able to suppress a “significant bulk of science research” that was in contradiction to the “IPCC position”. If this is not a belief in an omnipotent, global conspiracy of a cabal behind behind the alleged “AGW swindle/hoax/scam” or whatever you “skeptics” call it, what else is it? This cabal must be controlling of not just the IPCC body itself and the some hundreds of scientists who are writing the IPCC report, also of the relevant scientific academies all over the world, of the editorial boards of all the specialist journals in the field. How else could one prevent a “significant bulk of science research” to be published, which allegedly was in contradiction to the IPCC position? How else could one make certain that thousands of scientists from all over the world have participated in the forging of data and manipulating the results from research in the peer reviewed journals of the field for decades to forge evidence to support the “AGW scare”?
What exactly do you mean with “broader whole field”? I am talking about the ones who actually work and publish in the field of climate science. As someone who works in the field too, I think I would have noticed if the majority of the climate scientists did not agree with the statements that there has been global warming since pre-industrial times, the global warming in the recent 40 years or so can be attributed mostly to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the global warming is very likely to continue in the current and following centuries, if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase due to human activity. This does not mean that everyone agrees on every aspect, though. So, if you say my perception about this was wrong, where can I find all those many climate scientists who do not agree with those central statements, which, I think, have even reached the status of a paradigm in climate science?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 24, 2013 at 7:22 pm
John Whitman, on February 24, 2013 at 10:39 am
wrote:
Opinions?
Yes. It’s absurd conspiracy fantasy nonsense. But I understand why many (most?) “skeptics” are delving into the conspiracy fantasy crap. How else do you reconcile that your belief system is in full contradiction to a whole body of research in a scientific field? There must be some omnipotent global conspiracy of sinister forces behind it, who is controlling the whole field of science, involving thousands of climate scientists from all over the world, who agree with the paradigm of anthropogenically caused global warming, also generally the scientific academies all over the world, as well as the editorial boards of the international scientific specialist publications in the field. All controlled by some central cabal. And that this vast conspiracy still hasn’t blown up after several decades of promoting the “AGW hoax”, that there haven’t been any whistle blowers yet gone public of those people who have been involved in the conspiracy, only proves how powerful this conspiracy is. Every whistle blower has probably been vanished without any trace. All records about their existence erased.
———————————–
Bravo Jan! That’s one of the biggest straw men I’ve ever seen.
Martin van Etten,
Read this. Learn something new.
Shehan says:
“The overlay of the data is a correlation. It could be converted into a direct concentration vs temperature plot by factoring out the common time scale.”
Wrong, as usual. It is simply an overlay. The correlation is in the fact that ∆T causes ∆CO2. I provided a graph showing that direct correlation. I can provide more graphs showing the same correlation. So I challenge you to provide a similar graph of your own, but showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. The overlay you ginned up is a simple fabrication. It does not show cause and effect. Mine does.
If you can produce a chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T, it will be the first I have seen, and I have many thousands of charts and graphs. But if you cannot produce the same kind of chart, showing that CO2 causes changes in T, then you lose the argument.
In fact, you have already lost the argument many times over, starting with your absurd claim that global temperatures are accelerating, when in fact, global warming has stalled.
– – – – – – – –
Jan P Perlwitz,
Hey, I enjoy your replies as I think it is exciting that we can have the opportunity to attempt to drill past perceptions to some fundamental premises.
Per your points in both the quotes above, I respond that the IPCC must be by logic scientifically flawed due to the anthropogenically myopic framework that established it. And it is structurally incapable of scientifically separating itself from the influence of its ideological leadership. Plus, prima fascia it has not produced assessments that consistently agree with the actual present climate much less agree significantly with historical behavior of natural phenomena.
The scientists involved in IPCC assessment decision making can and do speak for themselves when not muzzled by the IPCC’s opaque processes; their arguments with critics of the IPCC can stand or fall per the very significant level of ongoing debate. That very broad and balanced dialog is much more scientifically appropriate than the problematic IPCC; the broader dialog has effectively bypassed the role of the IPCC. We already have the new paradigm on climate science synthesis, it is starkly open and transparent relative to the IPCC. {Jan, i think you are an important part of the new paradigm and I personally and sincerely thank you for participating.}
An objective indicator of the paradigm shift is scientists do not labor away in an closed forum. They can pick their professional options in the new paradigm. I think we are seeing growth of research unrestricted by the old paradigm (IPCC). Great news for science and the professional advancement of the more enterprising of the scientists.
Again I ask if the IPCC house’s necessary bottom foundational tier, the media, is dissolving and starting on another more plausible crusade? I do not know.
Take care. Hey, I presume you are in NYC, I will be NYC occasionally in May (I am spending May at my family’s rustic lakehouse in the Adirondacks) so we can perhaps cordially interact over a drink? I would enjoy that.
John
D.B. Stealey February 25, 2013 at 8:34 am says:
“Martin van Etten,
Read this. Learn something new.”
sorry D.B. Stealey, from recent Cryosat-2 data we know that ”Arctic sea ice volume has declined by 36 per cent in the autumn and 9 per cent in the winter between 2003 and 2012″
if the autumn-minimum is less and less ice, the difference with the winter-maximum grows bigger and bigger;
that explains the graph you showed to me here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/12/sea-ice-news-volume-4-1-arctic-ice-gain-sets-a-new-record/
regards
Martin
D.B. Stealey says: February 25, 2013 at 8:43 am
“In fact, you have already lost the argument many times over, starting with your absurd claim that global temperatures are accelerating, when in fact, global warming has stalled.”
D.B. Stealey,
there are several things wrong with the graph you are presenting here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rose-_16yrs_hardcrut4.jpg
a. why not some extra years before 1997 / 1998?
b. why not begin the graph with the 0,2 C from january 1997?
c. where are the “some thenths of a degree below 14C world average mentioned in the head of the figure?
please explain me;
Martin van Etten,
1. Arctic ice cover is cyclical. The Arctic has been completely ice-free in the geologic past.
2. Increasing Antarctic ice falsifies the alarmist claim that CO2 is the cause of Arctic ice decline, because CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, and it affects the Antarctic as well.
3. If Arctic ice cover should completely melt, there are clear benefits, including shorter transit times, and major fuel savings. There is no harm from an ice-free Arctic.
The climate alarmist crowd has grabbed hold of the declining Arctic ice narrative like a drowning man grabs a stick. However, the original prediction was that CO2 would cause global warming, which would melt both polar ice caps. Their prediction, like every other alarmist prediction, was wrong.
Thinking people understand that a minuscule 0.8ºC rise in global temperature over a century and a half cannot cause the polar ice caps to melt. On average most of the Arctic is well below 0ºC. Rather, it is changing winds, currents, and the appearance of a major storm that caused the current low Arctic ice cycle.
Between 6,000 – 7,000 years ago the Arctic was ice free. At that time CO2 was very low. And the planet has been much warmer than that, earlier in its history. We are currently in an Ice Age. In a Hothouse Earth, there is no polar ice. The planet’s temperature now is about 14ºC. It has been ten degrees warmer in the geologic past — when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity.
If your position is that Arctic ice cover is cyclical and natural, then we are in agreement. But if you are one of those who tries to blame declining Arctic ice on human CO2 emissions, then it is easy to show that you are promoting a false conjecture. Because there is no testable scientific evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of the current Arctic ice cycle.
Martin van Etten,
We cross posted and I missed your earlier comment. My response:
First off, the chart I linked to was not my construction, so complaining about the start date won’t change it. But here you can see the current trend, which is not rising.
And here is a chart of the entire satellite era. Note the trend over the past decade.
Here is a chart from 1995 [per your request, but I do not expect this to satisfy you; your mind is already made up on the subject].
Here is a chart showing flat temperatures during the past decade. Note the steadily rising CO2, which is doing nothing to raise temperatures.
Here is a chart showing that there has been no accelerated warming, despite a sharp rise in CO2. That effectively deconstructs the repeatedly debunked CO2=AGW narrative.
Finally, here is a comparison of human versus natural CO2 emissions. And China’s CO2 emissions are skyrocketing, while the U.S. emissions are declining. Question: are you writing as many blog posts criticizing China? And Russia, and India, and a hundred smaller countries? Or does everyone except the U.S. get a free pass?