UAH Global Temperature Report: March 2013 – temperature unchanged from February 2013

Well JP, if you don’t like the 16 year trends what do you think of the changes in trend?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/to:2013/trend

David:
I write to support the very important point you make in your post at April 3, 2013 at 6:32 am.
Some may not understand its importance so I again explain it here.
If one wants to know how long it has been since there was any discernible global warming at 95% confidence then one has to start from now – any other date is ‘cherry picking’ – and consider back in time. Then one has to determine if global temperature trend differs from zero at the low confidence level of 95% which is used by ‘climate science’.
It turns out that – depending on which time series is analysed – the time of no recent discernible global warming at 95% confidence is between 16 and 23 years. In other words, discernible global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.
This finding refutes the AGW hypothesis as exemplified by global climate models.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
So, your point is really, really important.
In my opinion, it needs to be stated and explained wherever possible.
Richard

john parsons AKA atarsinc:
I am copying all your post at April 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm so the offensiveness of what I am answering is clear.

richardscourtney
Your posts have some interesting insights. Particularly regarding the collection and use of temp data. However, they say nothing about the predictive value of the 16 year period you’ve chosen. A period begining with the hottest year of the data set.
And where did you get that definition of climate? Did you make it up? This is not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know.
Just so you don’t need to waste any more time letting me know how stupid I am: Richard Courtney is very, very smart and I’m not smart like Richard Courtney. JP

Allow me to address your final paragraph first.
Everybody makes mistakes and gets things wrong sometimes.
If I say something wrong then I am grateful when somebody tells me of my error. Indeed, you need look no further than yesterday’s ‘WUWT’ Open Thread for an example of me thanking somebody for correcting a misunderstanding I had stated. That does not make me “very, very smart” but it does show I want to learn.
You differ from me in that you make completely wrong statements as though they are true and object when the truth is explained to you. I do NOT say “how stupid” you are and I have not said it: why would I when your words speak for themselves?
I advise you to learn from the comments of others, and I remind that David wrote this to you at April 3, 2013 at 6:23 am

Re. atarsinc , your comment about 16 years shows you are either not thinking well, or purposefully miss read what I said. There have been three periods in the current glacial likely warmer then the present. Those three periods easily contain the current flatlined warmth to be well within natural variation. There were several other posts that had the patience to go into more detail with you. I appeciate them, but your condesending lecture tone only makes your arrogance appear to exceed your ignorance, something I hardly thought possible.

You achieve nothing by whinging at me for correcting your mistakes. But you may make fewer mistakes if you consider why somebody – not me – publicly says to you

your condesending lecture tone only makes your arrogance appear to exceed your ignorance, something I hardly thought possible.

Turning to your first paragraph, I can only observe that it says you have severe reading comprehension difficulties. It says to me

Your posts have some interesting insights. Particularly regarding the collection and use of temp data. However, they say nothing about the predictive value of the 16 year period you’ve chosen. A period begining with the hottest year of the data set.

That is complete nonsense. I explained the matter in detail in posts at April 3, 2013 at 3:07 am and with full explanation, reference, and quotation at April 3, 2013 at 7:23 am. And others did, too.
It is clear that you would benefit if you were to spend less time pontificating about issues you obviously don’t understand and spend more time reading the information which corrects your misunderstandings.
You ask me,

And where did you get that definition of climate? Did you make it up?

How dare you suggest I would “make it up”!?
You make stuff up. I don’t. I correct the stuff you make up.
I would accept your apology.
Before making such offensive suggestions you would do well to check your facts with a simple google. The definition I provided is obtainable in many places and using several different forms of words. This is one version copied from the IPCC AR4 Glossary which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf

Climate
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these
variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. In various parts of this report different averaging periods, such as a period of 20 years, are also used.

Richard