By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the New York Times has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades.
The NYT says the absence of warming arises because skeptics cherry-pick 1998, the year of the Great el Niño, as their starting point. However, as Anthony explained yesterday, the stasis goes back farther than that. He says we shall soon be approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17-year test: if there is no warming for 17 years, the models are wrong.
Usefully, the latest version of the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly series provides not only the anomalies themselves but also the 2 σ uncertainties.
Superimposing the temperature curve and its least-squares linear-regression trend on the statistical insignificance region bounded by the means of the trends on these published uncertainties since January 1996 demonstrates that there has been no statistically-significant warming in 17 years 4 months:
On Dr. Santer’s 17-year test, then, the models may have failed. A rethink is needed.
The fact that an apparent warming rate equivalent to almost 0.9 Cº is statistically insignificant may seem surprising at first sight, but there are two reasons for it. First, the published uncertainties are substantial: approximately 0.15 Cº either side of the central estimate.
Secondly, one weakness of linear regression is that it is unduly influenced by outliers. Visibly, the Great el Niño of 1998 is one such outlier.
If 1998 were the only outlier, and particularly if it were the largest, going back to 1996 would be much the same as cherry-picking 1998 itself as the start date.
However, the magnitude of the 1998 positive outlier is countervailed by that of the 1996/7 la Niña. Also, there is a still more substantial positive outlier in the shape of the 2007 el Niño, against which the la Niña of 2008 countervails.
In passing, note that the cooling from January 2007 to January 2008 is the fastest January-to-January cooling in the HadCRUT4 record going back to 1850.
Bearing these considerations in mind, going back to January 1996 is a fair test for statistical significance. And, as the graph shows, there has been no warming that we can statistically distinguish from zero throughout that period, for even the rightmost endpoint of the regression trend-line falls (albeit barely) within the region of statistical insignificance.
Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could – at least temporarily – bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc.
It is better to focus on the ever-widening discrepancy between predicted and observed warming rates. The IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report backcasts the interval of 34 models’ global warming projections to 2005, since when the world should have been warming at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century. Instead, it has been cooling at a rate equivalent to a statistically-insignificant 0.87 Cº/century:
The variance between prediction and observation over the 100 months from January 2005 to April 2013 is thus equivalent to 3.2 Cº/century.
The correlation coefficient is low, the period of record is short, and I have not yet obtained the monthly projected-anomaly data from the modelers to allow a proper p-value comparison.
Yet it is becoming difficult to suggest with a straight face that the models’ projections are healthily on track.
From now on, I propose to publish a monthly index of the variance between the IPCC’s predicted global warming and the thermometers’ measurements. That variance may well inexorably widen over time.
In any event, the index will limit the scope for false claims that the world continues to warm at an unprecedented and dangerous rate.
UPDATE: Lucia’s Blackboard has a detailed essay analyzing the recent trend, written by SteveF, using an improved index for accounting for ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar cycles. He concludes the best estimate rate of warming from 1997 to 2012 is less than 1/3 the rate of warming from 1979 to 1996. Also, the original version of this story incorrectly referred to the Washington Post, when it was actually the New York Times article by Justin Gillis. That reference has been corrected.- Anthony
Related articles
- The warming ‘plateau’ may extend back even further (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least April* Data) (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The Met Drops Its Basis For Claim Of “Significant” Warming (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)
- WUWT: 150 million hits and counting (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ryan says:
June 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Yes, glaciations became possible when it went somewhere around or under 3k. A little bit less sun output makes a huge difference, and so do other factors. These things are not news to most anyone who follows climate science, including the thousands of “warmist” climatologists who think the Earth is still warming in response to CO2. And claiming that we know concentrations hit 8k(20×400, assuming here that you don’t think Mauna Loa is in on the conspiracy ;D) is a bit out there. It’s possible, but it is not a sure thing.
————————————-
Wrong again. The relatively brief Ordovician glaciation happened with CO2 well above 3000 ppm. One of the proxy data sets has a resolution of ten million years, with about 7000 ppm on the older side & at least 4000 ppm on the newer, so CACCAs are reduced to arguing that CO2 could have dipped below 1000 ppm in between. Typical evidence free hand waving by CACCA.
Besides which, what of all the previous glaciations, some of which either covered the entire planet in ice or most of it? When they were initiated, CO2 levels might have been higher even than in the Cambrian, ie 7000 to 8000 ppm. No one knows for sure how much CO2 there was in Precambrian air. Estimates range from 90,000 ppm to 3200, although the latter figure (& lower) is controversial & from a single paper.
The “idea” that going from three CO2 molecules per 10,000 of dry air 100 years ago to six 100 years from now will cause runaway catastrophic global warming is nothing short of ridiculous. As you may know, water vapor levels in the tropics reach 400 molecules per 10,000 (40,000 ppm), totally swamping out any possible effect of one, two or three more CO2 molecules.
Ryan:
During what period has there been statistically significant global warming, by whichever cooked book surface data set you want to use? In 2009, Jones of UEA said there had been none since 1995. That was now 18 years ago, more or less, so to equal that period, statistically significant global warming would have had to commence in they famous weather year of 1977, which it may well have done, although most trend analyses find a later start date.
So in about a year, when the world has gone longer without significant warming than it previously experienced of warming, or has experienced cooling, all the while with CO2 rising at close to the same rate as before, will you consider CACCA scientifically falsified, or not?
Thanks.
Whether or not you feel like you agree with his statement doesn’t really change the fact that it is being misrepresented here. It isn’t even being compared to the right data…
This is classic quote-mining. Taking the words of a respected scientist out of context to add some weight to an otherwise nonsensical claim.
“Santer made his petard and he should be hoisted on it.”
With it, hoisted with it. A Petard is a small bomb that was placed on a raisable platform and put next to a castle wall or gate. One cannot be ‘hoist on his own petard’, one must be ‘hoist WITH his own petard’.
I think that anyone who is splitting hairs over what is meant by Santer’s statement is dissembling and does not want to accept that the models are invalidated.
Awesome, jai – you’ve demonstrated conclusively that you know nothing of Science, let alone “climate science”.
Then again, comparing Science to “climate science” is a bit like comparing a kindergarten Christmas concert to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
jai, it doesn’t MATTER if thousands of “scientists” are wrong. They’re still wrong. Luckily, tens of thousands are not “climate scientists” and don’t buy what the “climate” industry is selling.
Now, guess what happens when you try to “prove” that human emitted CO2 is the cause of the documented rise at Mauna Loa? Just as an exercise, you should try it. But, of course, you won’t. Because you’re not here to learn anything, you’re here to “teach us”… right?
[Snip. Commenter is persona non grata here. — mod.]
[Snip. — mod.]
The various trainwrecks in this thread have been interesting.
The remarkably clueless yet yappy jai mitchell is a stand out.
Here’s another reading assignment for jai.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/
Ryan:
I tried to find recent estimates of CO2 level before the Marinoan or previous Snowball Earth episodes, but haven’t succeeded. This 2013 press release on an LSU study of concentrations needed to melt the ice finds, as had prior papers, extremely high carbon dioxide levels, comparable to those of O2.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/lsu-lrf022813.php
Snowball Earth periods show the remarkable homoeostatic power of Mother Gaia. And speaking of Gaia, I respect James “Billions Will Die” Lovelock for being enough of a true scientist, ie practitioner of the scientific method, to realize he was wrong about the catastrophic component of CACCA, & maybe the anthropogenic part.
From his Wiki entry, the reliability of which can be checked via the footnotes:
Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he states:[33]
“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”[33]
He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[33]
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed
“I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”[33]
In the MSNBC article Lovelock is quoted as proclaiming:[32]
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;” he continues
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time … it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that”, he added.[32]
In a follow up interview Lovelock stated his support for natural gas; he now favors fracking as a low-polluting alternative to coal.[13][33] He opposes the concept of “sustainable development”, where modern economies might be powered by wind turbines, calling it meaningless drivel.[33][34] He keeps a poster of a wind turbine to remind himself how much he detests them.[13]
Robert:
I like Jai & hope he or she stays here if to learn rather than to keep regurgitating the lies he/she has eagerly consumed, after garbling (maybe meant the usual lie of 3 million years, not the ludicrously false 52 million) rather than digesting them.
There are much higher resolution estimates of the Ordivician CO2 levels, John. But they aren’t in the NIPCC so I guess they didn’t get much play around here.
But back to the topic at hand, Santer was talking about early detection of the anthropogenic forcing in TLT trends. It is being used here to talk about falsification of global surface temperature trends. That is a lie, pure and simple. It doesn’t mater whether your or Richard or Mr. of Brenchley like what he said. It’s still a falsehood, bannered and stickied on the closest thing to a reasonable place of sceptic climate science.
Ryan,
I didn’t find the ten million year resolution studies here but from SkS.
I’d be happy to see your finer resolution proxies for Ordovician CO2 levels. Thanks in advance.
There is no doubt that the surface temperature data sets have been “adjusted” without justification, making recent numbers warmer & older cooler. I can see it in my own reference materials. The most shocking revelation was that when GISS was finally forced to make public their UHI adjustment algorithm, the public learned that, contrary to all reason, the changes made temperatures higher rather than lower.
This kind of behavior is as far removed from science as possible. It’s shameless activism, & on the public dime, like Gavin’s blogging on the job & Hansen’s under-reporting outside income.
“I think that anyone who is splitting hairs over what is meant by Santer’s statement is dissembling and does not want to accept that the models are invalidated.”
It’s not splitting hairs. Santer didn’t claim that a test at 17 years would prove or disprove anything. Chris is using Santer’s name to give the test legitimacy.
Ryan,
You are avoiding my question:
How many years, in your opinion, would global warming have to stop for you to admit that the CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified? Post a specific number, please. How many years?
So: how many years?
John Tillman says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm
====
John…..U….Hide…..It
So YOU think temperature adjustments have been made without justification, therefore it is fine if sceptics piggy-back tests they invented out of whole cloth on the name Ben Santer. Seems reasonable.
Ryan,
It is YOUR test, not mine.
Pick a number.
Probably around 35 years, db. But I am not a climatologist(biology really is the greatest science, and I’ve stuck with it), so I don’t really think that carries much weight anywhere, at any time. That’s the thing about not working in a field, it makes your claims carry no weight. But the difference is that I’m not going to lift a Spencer quote out of context to try and fake some cred.
Ryan says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Probably around 35 years..
=====
But how in this world would you know?….it’s still only a fraction of a degree
.. a fraction of a degree will not show a trend
serious question….I’m not being a butt
Latitude says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:17 pm
John Tillman says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm
====
John…..U….Hide…..It
—————————–
I like that.
Ryan: I don’t think that GISS, et al, make unjustified adjustments. It’s an objective, observable fact that they have done so. Unless you can point me to an explanation that I’ve missed as to why they should suddenly from 2008 onwards change temperature averages from the 1930s that have been considered valid ever since they were recorded. Please show me their justifications for these “adjustments”. Thanks.
Ryan says:
“That’s the thing about not working in a field, it makes your claims carry no weight.”
We have no claims, Ryan. You make the claims. You just did it in your post above.
See, skeptics have nothing to prove. We only question the alarmist “carbon” claim, because it is a fact-free conjecture.
That’s how the Scientific Method works.
John Tillman says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Ryan: I don’t think that GISS, et al, make unjustified adjustments. It’s an objective, observable fact that they have done so
================
visual aid:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
Latitude:
Thank God that the late, great Daly archived those data.
GISS, NOAA & the Had Crew are truly shameless. How dare they claim to be scientists?
I hope that Ryan can produce their justifications for these “climate scientists'” outrageous, Orwellian misbehavior, which is the antithesis of genuine scientific behavior.
“We have no claims, Ryan. ”
Chris does. He claims that Santer devised a test to falsify warming at 17 years.
REPLY: And the claim is true, if you followed the link in the essay to Ben Santer’s 17 year itch you’d know this Mr. Gainey.
From: Separating signal and noise in climate warming
Source: http://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
We’ll be happy to accept your mea culpa at any time, we’ll even accept one “made out of whole cloth”.
– Anthony
Climate anti-scientists, IMO, started stepping on the historical data because there is a limit to how crispily they can cook the current books. Before 1979, the satellites aren’t keeping them from being as crooked as they want to be.