By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A commenter on my post mentioning that according to the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature dataset there has been no global warming at all for 200 months complains that I have cherry-picked my dataset. So let’s pick all the cherries. Here are graphs for all five global datasets since December 1996.
GISS:
HadCRUt4:
NCDC:
RSS:
UAH:
The mean of the three terrestrial datasets:
The mean of the two satellite datasets:
The mean of all five datasets:
Since a trend of less than 0.15 K is within the combined 2 σ data uncertainties arising from errors in measurement, bias, and coverage, global warming since December 1996 is only detectable on the UAH dataset, and then barely. On the RSS dataset, there has been no global warming at all. None of the datasets shows warming at a rate as high as 1 Cº/century. Their mean is just 0.5 Cº/century.
The bright blue lines are least-squares linear-regression trends. One might use other methods, such as order-n auto-regressive models, but in a vigorously stochastic dataset with no detectable seasonality the result will differ little from the least-squares trend, which even the IPCC uses for temperature trend analysis.
The central question is not how long there has been no warming, but how wide is the gap between what the models predict and what the real-world weather brings. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, to be published in Stockholm on September 27, combines the outputs of 34 climate models to generate a computer consensus to the effect that from 2005-2050 the world should warm at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº per century. Yeah, right. So, forget the Pause, and welcome to the Gap:
GISS:
HadCRUt4:
NCDC:
RSS:
UAH:
Mean of all three terrestrial datasets:
Mean of the two satellite datasets (monthly Global Warming Prediction Index):
Mean of all five datasets:
So let us have no more wriggling and squirming, squeaking and shrieking from the paid trolls. The world is not warming anything like as fast as the models and the IPCC have predicted. The predictions have failed. They are wrong. Get over it.
Does this growing gap between prediction and reality mean global warming will never resume? Not necessarily. But it is rightly leading many of those who had previously demanded obeisance to the models to think again.
Does the Great Gap prove the basic greenhouse-gas theory wrong? No. That has been demonstrated by oft-repeated experiments. Also, the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, though it was discovered empirically by Stefan (the only Slovene after whom an equation has been named), was demonstrated theoretically by his Austrian pupil Ludwig Boltzmann. It is a proven result.
The Gap is large and the models are wrong because in their obsession with radiative change they undervalue natural influences on the climate (which might have caused a little cooling recently if it had not been for greenhouse gases); they fancifully imagine that the harmless direct warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration – just 1.16 Cº – ought to be tripled by imagined net-positive temperature feedbacks (not one of which can be measured, and which in combination may well be net-negative); they falsely triple the 1.16 Cº direct warming on the basis of a feedback-amplification equation that in its present form has no physical meaning in the real climate (though it nicely explains feedbacks in electronic circuits, for which it was originally devised); they do not model non-radiative transports such as evaporation and convection correctly (for instance, they underestimate the cooling effect of evaporation threefold); they do not take anything like enough account of the measured homeostasis of global temperatures over the past 420,000 years (variation of little more than ±3 Cº, or ±1%, in all that time); they daftly attempt to overcome the Lorentz unpredictability inherent in the mathematically-chaotic climate by using probability distributions (which, however, require more data than straightforward central estimates flanked by error-bars, and are thus even less predictable than simple estimates); they are aligned to one another by “inter-comparison” (which takes them further and further from reality); and they are run by people who fear, rightly, that politicians would lose interest and stop funding them unless they predict catastrophes (and fear that funding will dry up is scarcely a guarantee of high-minded, objective scientific inquiry).
That, in a single hefty paragraph, is why the models are doing such a spectacularly awful job of predicting global temperature – which is surely their key objective. They are not fit for their purpose. They are mere digital masturbation, and have made their operators blind to the truth. The modelers should be de-funded. Or perhaps paid in accordance with the accuracy of their predictions. Sum due to date: $0.00.
In the face of mounting evidence that global temperature is not responding at ordered, the paid trolls – one by one – are falling away from threads like this, and not before time. Their funding, too, is drying up. A few still quibble futilely about whether a zero trend is a negative trend or a statistically-insignificant trend, or even about whether I am a member of the House of Lords (I am – get over it). But their heart is not in it. Not any more.
Meanwhile, enjoy what warmth you can get. A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s OK – it’s the Pacific what done it. It’s official. The BBC says so http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904
Mystery solved, folks – back to your panic stations.
Before this decade is out we will know how much of an influence the sun has on the climate in contrast to co2.
This debate should be over very soon.
The only explanation to explain all the jig saw temperature changes often times abrupt and happening in a decade or so are prolonged solar changes from one state of activity to another state of activity, and all of the associated side effects.
Nothing else holds up.
Gail , has shown various studies but none of them can address the abrupt climate change issue.
Until that issue is addressed any theory on climate change is null and void.
rgbatduke- (6.03) You sound surprised at the sun climate connection.
It is amazing how the establishment scientists in the USA and UK not only abandoned scientific judgement but also simple common sense and reason in their leap to make CO2 the main driver of climate change.Here is a passage rfom the latest post on my blog at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“b) A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns.
How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate?
When,about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW – CO2 based scare, some simple observations immediately presented themselves.These seem to have escaped the notice of the Climate Establishment. ( See the Post 5/14/13 Climate Forecasting for Britains Seven Alarmist Scientists and for UK Politicians.)
a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade and under clouds than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays – can this be a clue?
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some modest knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that solar activity and our orbital relations to the sun were the main climate drivers. More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine,the amount of cloud cover,the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday and at Midsummer . It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to postulated anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.
These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone’s considered thought are,at once , much nearer the truth and certainly would be much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC – Met Office models and the Global Warming impact studies and the emission control policies based on them.
For a more more data based approach see Fig 6 (taken from Steinhilber 2012) in my blog at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-sun-stupid-minor-significance-of-co2.html
Dr. Norman Page,is one of the few that understand the climate system and what makes it work.
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that the somewhat recent reconciliation of satellite observations of the sun based on an instrumental error, which, btw, lowered observations of the quiet sun (minimum of the solar cycle) down to 1361 W/m^2, coupled with Leif S’s showing that simple, sunspot numbers have to be corrected for method because the folk who provide the counts have changed methodologies (aka multipliers) over time in ways which have not been taken into account. If you do so (and he has) recent solar activity does not reach a maximum between 1950 and 2000, but has been rather constant since 1700. This throws a rather effective spanner into the it must be the sun arguments.
What steveta_uk fails to get or chooses to forget or is paid to ignore is that we don’t give a tuppeny $hit whether a) C Monkton is a Lord or not b) cross dresses or c) runs around naked at each full moon … etc. … you get the message?
We do care that a “good bloke” – and yes I have met him – is passionate in his beliefs and in a polite way presents those beliefs such that they can be studied / dissected by others. This being in total contrast to the Manns, Cooks of this world.
So steveta_uk: how can I put this? If you cannot argue the science do us all a favour and piss off.
You’d think that someone who bought the first ever computer into No. 10 and stopped the miner’s strike with a doff of his cap would know that you usually need at least 30 data points to discern a trend.
rgb said with respect to Europe “and they are backing off as hard as they can right now”
Mainland Europe, maybe, but the UK is contemplating the abyss of impossible to achieve co2 reduction and think they can do it simply by passing an act in the house of common fools.
Eli said “recent solar activity does not reach a maximum between 1950 and 2000, but has been rather constant since 1700. This throws a rather effective spanner into the it must be the sun arguments”
I’m afraid what you have said disagrees with the observed evidence, in particular the Dalton minimum round 1810. It is likely the sun has a double effect, firstly although reduction in TSI may be small, reduction in EUV is large, secondly reduction in magnetic field may well provide a magnification effect via the Svensmark GCR mechanism.
So although the effects of a loss of sunspots are not yet observed by modern science, the most likely effect will be cooling, caused by the sun one way or another. Time will tell, and within certainly 17 years, possibly far less.
“… so far, I don’t think I’ve seen a single comment that criticizes Monckton’s posting (or defends the models) based on legitimate scientific or statistical grounds.” (Hoy! A wildcat! — intriguing name, Sir or Madam)
WELCOME TO POSTING ON WUWT! (I’m fairly new myself, but likely no one else will say anything, so, here I am)
Glad you piped up. Good comment. Keep it up and HAVE FUN!
#(:))
Heh, heh, looks like your mentioning the matter summoned up a rabbit troll…. no science, no legitimate statistics, just a wager… . lol
Hoyawildcat = Georgetown U + U of Arizona.
Simon:
re your post at August 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I would think that even an anonymous troll would learn some basic understranding of statistical analysis before demonstrating his/her/their/its ignorance by making a fallacious statement such as
Usually? No, it depends on the data set.
Richard
The solar crowd is standing on fudge factors and “amplification” to the same degree the CO2 crowd is. Not a very solid thing to stand on. Neither side spends one iota of time studying weather pattern variation and the degree of energy required to shift and sustain those patterns to the extent that global temperatures shift from one regime trend to another trend. No clue at all. Yet they trumpet their favorite version of a gnat being able to shift the elephants in the room thus change the amount and location of dung piling up or disappearing.
Pamela Gray wrote: “The solar crowd is standing on fudge factors and ‘amplification’ to the same degree the CO2 crowd is. Not a very solid thing to stand on. Neither side spends one iota of time studying weather pattern variation and the degree of energy required to shift and sustain those patterns to the extent that global temperatures shift from one regime trend to another trend. No clue at all. Yet they trumpet their favorite version of a gnat being able to shift the elephants in the room thus change the amount and location of dung piling up or disappearing.”
The point is is that the “CO2 crowd” is in control of policy, and based on what??? Their models have been refuted. And yet they want to institute all sorts of new policies that will, at the very least, disrupt the economy, if not cripple it. The “solar crowd,” on the other hand, seems to be ignored and doesn’t have any political agenda, except all of those who are in the pocket of the Koch brothers or big oil, which, of course, the “CO2 crowd” claims each and every one is.
Richard Courtney says:
“What you, I, or anybody else thinks “should be at issue” has no relevance to what IS at issue. And this thread is about what is at issue.”
That dubious statement is emblematic of the difference between a debate-oriented viewpoint and a scientific one. It is by no means true that all modellers claim “to emulate climate behaviour as represented by the existing data sets of global temperature.” Some do recognize that their models do not emulate certain intra-decadal (ENSO) and multi-decadal (AMO, PDO) oscillations evident in various “global” surface temperature indices. Thus the length of time over which a linear trend is fitted is very much an issue in any compelling falsification of model results. Although I place no confidence in any model, or in linear trends, my original point that a 200-month interval is grossly inadequate for that purpose stands scientifically unchallenged.
@ur momisugly hoyawildcat — Got it! Thanks for helping me understand. #(:))
Sheffield Chris asked:
“If the models are as wrong as they appear to be, and the areas of error are as clear as outlined by Lord Monckton (Title not in doubt by me), has anybody published a more realistic model output that matches reality?”
I’ve seen a few “more realistic models” and this one seems to match reality very well:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/natural-climate-change-has-been-hiding.html
richardscourtney says:
August 28, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Simon:
re your post at August 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I would think that even an anonymous troll would learn some basic understranding of statistical analysis before demonstrating his/her/their/its ignorance by making a fallacious statement such as
rgbatduke says:
August 28, 2013 at 6:03 am
“Wow, really interesting.”
Thanks.
“Why not break this out and turn it into a top article? A single streaming GIF isn’t the best possible way to present either textual or graphical information, and I hesitate to add the link to my collection of climate-related links because the source link does not have the feel of permanence (where WUWT is archived AFAICT indefinitely).”
I might try that sometime indeed (although needing to get around to converting to more professional style for that, while uncertain whether it would be accepted and whether all images would make it through).
In the meantime, as a small note, when you mentioned the matter of permanence, I realized just now that I could make a permanent version by sending it to webcitation:
http://www.webcitation.org/6JE6Xp0Y7
(appearing small at first but enlarging on further click).
Matthew R Marler says:
August 28, 2013 at 9:20 am
“I concur on the importance of estimating derivatives and relating derivatives to potentially relevant factors that alter the rate of change.”
“Do you have a paper? That looks worthwhile.”
Certainly. A non-paywalled full-text version online of the Holgate paper is at the following address, where the sea level plot is figure 2 in it:
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf
The version in my composite image adds red & blue box highlights while cropping to the 1964-onwards period of neutron monitor data for its comparison plot (but is otherwise the same).
In that paper, figure 4 is a conventional-style sea level plot, but how the derivative is more informative can be seen in figure 2.
1sky1:
re your post at August 28, 2013 at 4:05 pm
I refuse to bite on your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of my words by selective quotation and, instead,
I respond to all your irrelevance by saying,
Yeah, whatever.
Richard
The argument about recent solar activity being roughly constant since 1700 is Leif S’s. The EUV argument at this point is pretty much handwaving.
Perhaps too terse. If sunspot numbers have been roughly constant since 1700 and EUV is associated with sunspot number, there is no reason to believe that EUV changed radically since then unless you come up with other proxys.
The North Pole is all but melted.
The seas are rising. Islands are being abandoned.
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-science-global-source-sea.html#ajTabs
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2951
Parallel To How Small Royalty
Owners’ Interests Are Not The
Same As Those Of The Large
Drillers:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Federation_of_Independent_Business
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/28/fire_ants_from_hell_are_the_ultimate_invader_partner/
http://www.futurity.org/rising-temps-may-alter-moth-outbreaks/
http://www.iop.org/news/13/aug/page_60872.html
http://www.multiurl.com/ga/globalwarmingandfishcollapse
http://www.multiurl.com/ga/Weird_MSM_Talking_Heads_Eliminating_Your_Kids_World_Now
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
Clearly Americans And Canadians
Should Start Preparing For The
Possibility Of The Jet Stream
Disintegrating.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/08/2109821/video-climate-arctic-death-spiral-and-weather-whiplash/?mobile=nc
http://aosis.org/
http://caribbeanclimateblog.com/