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.
Village Idiot,
I am perfectly capable of knowing whether someone can’t sing, dance, juggle, etc. I am not required to do it better than them in order to render judgment.
Mr. Idiot, since the IPCC does not do any future predictions (according to Trenberth) why is it you expect Monckton to do something different? Maybe you should direct your energies to the IPCC or Trenberth.
The CO2 GHE was quoted about as 1.16C/doubling. I’ve seen many references to different numbers. If I use the following site to compute the increase of 3.7 w/m2 I get less that .8C (start at TOA/4 and add 3.7 to the power) . Does anyone have a reference to why these various numbers are different.
http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/Temperature_Conversions.html
Also, the CERES data that Willis referenced in his “spot” article shows that feedbacks are negative for most of the planet. This means whatever the impact of the CO2 GHE, the result will not be as high as the computed value.
The Old Farmers Almanac does it better than the climate models. It is predicting 2014 to be a very cold year. Village idiots, take heed.
Another well-written piece that even a non-scientist like myself can at least appreciate. Christopher Monckton writes very eloquently for the ordinary reader – it’s a tragedy the msm are too cowardly to ever print his informed analysis.
MattN says: @ur momisugly August 27, 2013 at 3:59 am
As good as this is, what we really need is some cooling that no one can deny/spin instead of non-warming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nature may be about to answer your prayers although I doubt it will matter since the Media is turning a blind eye to all the record breaking lows set in the USA; 2/3 of the USA cooler than normal January to Augst 2013 and 2899 record colds vs 667 record warms for the USA 7/24/2013 to 8/21/2013 the fact the temperature above 80N has been cooler than average all summer; DMI The fact the Arctic Ice is within 2 sigma of ‘normal’ DMI Also the MET office managed to blame Global Warming (thawing of the Arctic) for all the nasty winter weather in the UK. The Huffington Post: Climate Change ‘Causing Colder British Winters’ Says Met Office Chief Scientist
JimS says:
August 27, 2013 at 6:00 am
> The Old Farmers Almanac does it better than the climate models. It is predicting 2014 to be a very cold year. Village idiots, take heed.
I don’t think the Old Farmer’s Almanac is out yet, you are referring to the Farmers’ Almanac from Maine, a pretender to the throne.
Exactly!
RGB, your points are well-founded, but it is quite relevant for Monckton to mention–in some manner–the behavior of CO2 in a period in which Earth’s temperature, represented in the main available data sets, has been nearly unchanged. The best temperature information we now have invites skepticism about AGW; it would be ironic is the warmists were to seize upon the unreliability of their own data as a defense against Monckton’s criticism.
@Ric_Werme
Yes, you are correct. My bad. The Old Farmers Almanac comes out next month. I doubt its predictions will be much different, since both almanacs rely more on the Sun and its influence, rather than CO2. Our children will still know what snow is next year.
James Strom says–
Typo: “ironic if the warmists”. Darn! And I used preview.
Glynn Mhor, ” Mann-O-Pause” makes me smile!
Steve Jones says: @ur momisugly August 27, 2013 at 4:44 am
….. Sadly, amateur has come to mean second rate.…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is very unfortunate since I know a lot of ‘amateurs’ who are a lot better than ‘professionals’ in many different callings. As far as I can see the only difference between the two is as you mentioned an amateur does it for love and a professional for money. There is nothing in those definitions that says who is actually better. In some instances, like horse training, the amateur, who has no reason to force the horse to be ridable in a month, does a much better and more thorough job of it. In science, whether in academia or industry, again the professional is playing to someone else’s tune and if he doesn’t ‘produce’ what is wanted within time constraints he is penalized. All the science fraud in many different fields that is now coming to light is cause by this problem with ‘professionals’
His Lordship, as you say “is definitely an amateur in the original sense of the word.”
Chris Schoneveld says:
August 27, 2013 at 3:57 am
So, yes, RSS was a cherry, because it was the only one that showed (be it statistically insignificant) cooling for 200 months
On the other hand, two data sets that were not discussed here are right on the heels of RSS, namely Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2. Both show 196 months of a flat slope. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:196/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:196/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/last:196/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/last:196
Ric Werme says:
August 27, 2013 at 6:11 am
I don’t think the Old Farmer’s Almanac is out yet, you are referring to the Farmers’ Almanac from Maine, a pretender to the throne.
================================
The Farmers’ Almanac is using words like “piercing cold,” “bitterly cold” and “biting cold” to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy “Storm Bowl.”
The 197-year-old publication that hits newsstands Monday predicts a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. It also predicts a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57600023/farmers-almanac-predicts-a-bitterly-cold-winter/
Village Idiot says:
August 27, 2013 at 4:15 am
Utter Nonsense
LOL. Where is Nick Stokes? He seems to think that the IPCC has never made a prediction. ROFLMAO.
Steve Jones says:
August 27, 2013 at 4:44 am
Another thing, the root of the word amateur is the latin word amare (to love). It was originally used to describe someone who did something for the love of it and who was considered more noble than someone doing something professionally. Sadly, amateur has come to mean second rate. His Lordship is definitely an amateur in the original sense of the word whereas many modern climate scientists are definitely professional.
=======================================================================
Quite so. Would this be an appropriate moment to state the oft quoted comment that Noah’s Ark was built by amateurs and RMS Titanic was built by professionals?
“…most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”
Yeah, right, as if the Sun was the primary source of heat for the planet or something.
Oh, wait…never mind.
Didn’t Willis once point out that even the reflected off the Moon heat from the Sun is noticeable? If such a small amount can be detected, what a great effect would be even a small change in the Sun?
How can people still cling to the CO2 myth — including WUWT? The idea that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures has failed the observational test.
“Does the Great Gap prove the basic greenhouse-gas theory wrong? No.” ???? Observation of actual events HAS disproved the GHG theory. Get over it.
The error in the models is largely a result of the assumption that post LIA warming stopped 150 years ago. This warm biases the models because they assume that natural warming must be due to human activity.
Occam tells us to pick the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that post LIA warming did not suddenly stop 150 years ago, that it continues to this day. Thus the climate models are running hot because they do not account for long term natural variability.
Lord Monckton states:
“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.”
Whilst I agree with the answer to the first sentence, I can see no purpose in the balance of the paragraph. In my opinion, this article would be better served if it stuck to the observational data, and did not discuss the ‘science’ of GW. That way it would be better focused on the key point namely the model divergence from reality, which divergence may be because the underlying science is wrong, or the science is not well modelled, and/or there are just simply too many unknowns and/or because of chaos even if the science is well understood and modelled still no prediction of the future would be possible.
The data is the data, although much of the data has been basterdised by endless adjustments/homogenisation (the need for much is moot), polluted by UHI and poor siting issues, and biases may well have crept in with station drop outs and the like (including the state of screen maintenance).
It is apt to point out what the data shows, and what the models predict/project and to comment upon the divergence. That is the crux of the issue and rgb’s comments (rgbatduke says:
August 27, 2013 at 5:08 am ) usefully add to how the data should be seen and interpreted.
In my opinion, the comments in the artcile on the ‘science’ of GW and the speculation such as “…(which might have caused a little cooling recently if it had not been for greenhouse gases)…” only serves to detract from the central point of the article and as such dilutes the take home message.
Dear Lord Monckton,
In the first sentence of the second to the last paragraph, my Minnesota ear for American English wonders if the phrase at ordered is a small typographical error and should read as ordered?
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.
Gail Combs: Bravo!
Rather than taking your words as ‘truth’, I followed your link to Elaine Dewar’s ‘Cloak of Green’ but did more than that… I went to Maurice Strong’s wiki and read that and, then, the reviews of her other major book on Amazon.
In doing so I looked mainly at the negative reviews of her work. Considering those and their wording tells me all I need to know about the curious influences of big science, ‘Big Oil’ and their role in what is going on.
When you look at the ‘World of Science’ with a critical eye as she has done, what you see is not necessarily scandalous but instead proves that any field has its own agenda which may or may not be in the best interests of the public or even scientific method.
I have no doubt that reading the wiki’s of the other players Dewar mentions in her book will link the ‘conspiracy’ together. What is foreseen is a one-world cabal by influential NGO’s and Corporations administered by UN edict, and paid for by ‘Contributions’ by the various first world states. All ‘behind the curtains’ of course.
And the press is of course complicit in this. There is no doubt of that.
If some of you find that loony, just pay attention to other events that seem unrelated and do what I did… read the evidence for yourself. Follow the money.
Alone, none of them are too weird. Together, they are chilling.
Kudos
richardscourtney says:
August 27, 2013 at 4:27 am
“Lord Monckton….as a scientist”
Nope…Google him and I don’t think he is. Jounalist, yes. Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, yep. He is obviously, as you so rightly say, an amateur, doing what he loves best…Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British public speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
So will the Honorable Knight pick up the gauntlet? Methinks not. He may be many things, but he’s not stupid enough to put his money where his mouth – he’d crash and burn. He’d rather keep his powder dry and “predict by proxy”: “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.”
What a clever Champion we have!
Chris Schoneveld says:
August 27, 2013 at 3:57 am
So to summarize: Lord Monckton did pick the dataset with the lowest, (even negative) trend (RSS) of -0.2 ºC/century since all the other datasets show positive trends between +0.44ºC/century and +0.93 ºC/century. So, yes, RSS was a cherry, because it was the only one that showed (be it statistically insignificant) cooling for 200 months (I know, the warming trends of the others are equally statistically insignificant).
//////////////////////
Don’t forget that the raison d’etre for the change from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut 4 was because Hadcrut3 was flat (just like RSS), and the ‘Team’ required at least some signs of warming (even if the warming is of no statistical significance) and hence the emergence of Hadcrut4.
The reality is that within measurement errors, there appears no warming in any data set for 17 or more years.
If the satellite data set is to be preferred then apart from a step change around the Super El Nino of 1998, there has been no warming these past 33 years. The warming these past 33 years certainly has not been anything akin to a steady linear annual/decadel increase but instead, just one step change/climate shift.