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.
The cherry pick claim is now the universal shield used by CO2 advocates to dismiss contradictions. Before the politics of climate change contrary evidence was a signal of an incomplete or wrong hypothesis prompted deeper discussion.
There is also climateschizophrenia. When a skeptic highlights the lack of warming it is called cherry picking but Hansen, Trenberth, Solomon, von Storch and most climate scientists admit the global average has failed to rise in over a decade. As von Storch said Dr. von Storch replied, “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations”
Determining when the trend change is a bit puzzling. There are very strong El Nino -la Nna effects in 1998 to 2001, so the fluctuations are anomalous. Though it is statistically not different from the trend since 2001 to now, is it also Not statistically different from the trend from 1980 to 1997? Why should the time 1998 to 2000 be assigned to either the current trend or the previous trend? Since least squares regression is very strongly affected by anomalies wouldn’t it be more robust to determine the current trend based on the trend since those strong events calmed down, and the prior trend from before they occurred? It seems to me that the hinge point where the trends changed should be determined by projecting forward the 1980 to 1997 trend and backwards the 2001 to current trend and see where they intersect.
fyi – This is from the comment section associated with today’s WaPo article about warming. I linked to the graph, above, and got this as a response, below. Sounds like slander to me.
jimbenison
9:47 AM EDT
Anthony Watts has lied and manipulated and smeared and been a fraud to the point where it cannot be seen as an accident. It is a pattern of behavior.
He isn’t just a joke, he is a menace to society. In fact, he might be held criminally accountable some day.
Anyone can say anything they want about the guy because he and his Heartland partners in crime know that stepping into a courtroom would be suicidal.
———–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-global-warming-warning-cant-be-ignored/2013/08/26/448eb232-0c39-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_allComments.html
mellyrn says: @ur momisugly August 27, 2013 at 5:17 am
……I’d welcome a direction to a high-school-level explanation (one not written by believers in AGW)…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try Dr. Spencer:
Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Global Warming
My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies
Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment
What you are saying, the temperature is modified with the highs being lower and the lows being higher, actually works for H2O, think rain forest vs desert. This is because H2O has absorption bands in both the higher wavelengths (sunshine) and the lower wavelengths (earthshine IR)
My comments using an actual example:
comment 1
comment 2
and Sleepalot’s original comment and his other interesting comment.
Village Idiot says:
August 27, 2013 at 6:49 am
=====
What an odd request….
Asking someone to make a prediction….when the argument is we don’t know enough to make those predictions
I hate to mention reality but Obama is still in charge and he thinks global warming is an issue and is acting accordingly. Forget the facts this is power politics.
Excellent article! One would like to point out notes from Sankhya research little long .sorry if there is any inconvenience.
The Suns (hence Earth’s too) distance from the galactic centre keeps changing which causes polar glacial meltdown every 26000 yrs. It is moving towards cooling!
In Sankhya the Triguna theory of simultaneous and self similar interactions derives the standard oscillatory cycle of components in space through axiomatic theorems and equals 2.965759669e+8 interactions per cycle,. It is approximately equal to the frequency of modern velocity of light at a wavelength of a meter in 1.010845 seconds, which is due the earth’s distance from the Sun. The solar gravity field flux density varies as the log of distance. The Meter to yard conversion factor of 1.30795 for cubic space and a time correction of 2.99792458e+8/1.486e+11 shown below which is an indicator of their scientific knowledge. It yields the value of 3.5312861 x 1025 cubic yards per second exact to the 7th decimal place of the value from the Rigvedic theorem. Statistically this equivalence cannot be an accident. An important factor is that time correction for Galactic and Earth velocities were included which means the Vedic forefathers knew of the Doppler shift in frequency due to relative movement
“Sanskrit” means a refined code. “Sama” means equalised and “krit” means cut, clipped, divided, pulsed or in other words a code. The language was developed scientifically and logically as the only possible code human beings could create naturally with the equipment they had, the human body.
Any cyclic vibration has a typical characteristic of reversal of action, like up and down, forward and backward or left and right and this variation can be described as creation and destruction or acceleration and deceleration or sinusoidal oscillation. If the opposing effects are equal they cancel out or the nett algebraic effect is zero which does not contribute to detectable or measurable signal. The period the pulse is on can be considered a ‘mark’ and the silence a ‘space’ and a combination of mark and space makes a cycle.
(Rapid Rise of Sea Level 19,000 Years Ago and Its Global Implications
Peter U. Clark,1* A. Marshall McCabe,3 Alan C. Mix,2 Andrew J. Weaver4
Evidence from the Irish Sea basin supports the existence of an abrupt rise in sea level (meltwater pulse) at 19,000 years before the present (B.P.). Climate records indicate a large reduction in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation and attendant cooling of the North Atlantic at this time, indicating a source of the meltwater pulse from one or more Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. Warming of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Southern Hemisphere also began at 19,000 years B.P. These responses identify mechanisms responsible for the propagation of deglacial climate signals to the Southern Hemisphere and tropics while maintaining a cold climate in the Northern Hemisphere.)
The stellar divisions based on 28 Nakshatras- the angular width = 12.857 (With 27 the angular divisions are 13.333 deg.)
Calculations show that the current starting position or the 0 degree position on the ecliptic to date is in the Nakshatra( Na = ‘not’ Aksha = ‘terrestrial latitude’ Atra = ‘in this case’ meaning not a terrestrial latitude in this case) is a label to identify a numerical angular position or celestial latitude or longitude Aswini or Aries constellation between 0 and 13 degrees. As a rough guide the total ayanamsa period of 25739 years divided by 28 yields 919 years per Nakshatra passage.
The Vedic scholars, following the Sankhya principle of self-similarity that governed the dynamic state of the Substratum, took the ecliptic coincidence as a clock time benchmark that can at least be relied on in a cycle of approximately 25739 years. This drift or Ayanamsa(Ayan = motion or movement and Amsha degree or division) was used by astronomers and astrologers to fix the moving zodiac (ecliptic) so that accurate comparisons of events could be made in a locality where everything is moving relative to everything else. If the number of Ayanamsa cycles are known between events in multiple units of 25739 years, then it could be compared meaningfully.
The earth’s equator spins at a mean surface velocity of approximately 462 m/s and the earth itself moves around the sun at an algebraic mean speed of approx. 29845.4 m/s. But the earth’s axis is tilted by 23.5 deg. to the plane of revolution around the sun, called the ecliptic. As a result of this tilt, the earth’s maximum spin velocity vector at the equator works out to : 462 x .91706 (cos 23.5) = 423.52 m/s. The drift of the starting point of the ecliptic is at the rate of 423.52 / 29845.4 = 1 / 70.47 of a cycle and the drift due to the sidereal effect is 1/365.25 thereby giving a total drift of 1 / (70.47 x 365.25) = 1/ 25739 of a cycle. It means that an identical ecliptic coincidence of the sun and earth at a particular position will be repeated only after 25739 cycles or years in this case. This calculation has been shown in a simplified form to make it understandable but a very accurate calculation supported by many years of practical observation gives a drift rate of 50.35 seconds of arc per solar year and is only used in Vedic astrological calculations as a normal course . The precession of the equinox calculated by applying modern principles of celestial mechanics is 26000 years or (49.85 sec of arc per year.).The precession of the equinox provides the correct algorithm to predict global weather trends.. The glacial melt about 10000 years ago is now driving the world towards a colder regime in another 3000 years or the mid cycle of 26000 years to another glacial melt But extremely accurate calculations give varying precessional rates at different periods and relative positions, but the 25739 rate is an average of over 30000 years.
Finally, The numerical proof for this fact comes from the enigmatic 2.7 degree Kelvin background temperature in space that Peebles et al recorded. The 10e+17 modes of change in entropy in a micro blackhole in space logarithmically equals the natural log value of e = 2.718 or the total sum of self-similar change in volume per cycle. Mathematically it could never exceed 2.718. Hawking et al exposed the entropy value but as a macro blackhole phenomenon on a solar scale, for science was apparently unaware of the concept of scale invariance and reflection symmetry in a frozen hologram. So a tiny blackhole is no different from a massive blackhole except for its self- similar time cycle.
The earth spins on its own axis in 24 hours or 1/365.25 of its annual orbit around the sun. This sets the actual time of a daily revolution to less than 24 hours of clock time, if the starting point of each daily revolution is referred to a location in the sky; that is ( (24 x 3600)/365.25) = 236.55 sec or 3 min and 56.55 sec less than 24 hours. It means that if we use a particular stellar constellation or star at the zenith or the horizon, identifying the starting point for the daily revolution of the earth, one would see this mark arrive 3 min and 56.55 sec earlier every day and will again coincide with the same stellar location and clock time only after 365.25 days or a year. It is the natural shift in timing of an object that is both spinning and orbiting in space. The time of 23 hrs 56 min 3.45 sec is called sidereal time. Hence we can locate the star accurately at any future time by applying the sidereal time from a known date within an annual cycle. Similarly if the location of this star is recorded at a particular time, it is possible to work out the location of the observer and the date of such observation, all within the cycle of one year. This example has been quoted to show that location and date of events can be ascertained with the required degree of accuracy based on the sidereal shift in stellar positions. Added to the sidereal shift that moves along the solar ecliptic, there is another movement due to the shift in the angle of earth’s axis to the ecliptic that creates a relative change in the angle of inclination of the ecliptic. This movement is called precession of the equinox and is treated in current physics as a problem connected with spinning bodies like a gyroscope and in relativistic physics it is due to the curvature of the field. But Sankhya proves that all phenomenon is due to the synchronisation of vibrations or it is of a holographic nature and treats space like any other matter field comprising gas or fluid etc. that causes delay by superpositioning of vibrations and therefore a shift in the static or synchronised state and both these shifts are combined and defined as Ayanamsa (Ayan = motion or movement and Amsha degree or division- in Sanskrit explained below). The fundamental reason that precession exists is that the oscillating or vibrating parameters along the two axis in the plane of motion is not synchronous or the synchronous nodes along the two axis have marginally different rates of oscillations. Two sets of axial vibrations can be in resonance or have a standing wave relationship if the two axis (say x and y ) have a ratio of one to two. That is the tangent of an angle of 26.565 is exactly ½ and at this value the resonant state at the 2nd harmonic is maintained. This is perhaps just the tip of iceberg !!! Pls explore http://www.kapillavastu.com
arthur4563 says:
August 27, 2013 at 5:44 am
If the objection is cherry picking the years involved, then let’s REALLY cherry pick andstart with the MWP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nah, start with the Cretaceous. graph
Village Idiot:
I see that again you demonstrate your idiocy at August 27, 2013 at 6:49 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401056
where you write
Village Idiot, what you “think” is not relevant and is merely further demonstration of your idiocy.
I actually wrote
That is true.
Richard
@Village Idiot
You wrote about Lord Monckton: “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!”
JimS responds: If the Sun is so obvious as the culprit for temperature, why haven’t the modelers clued into this already? So you mock Lord Monckton for being clever in leaning upon the obvious main driver of temperature? How bitter-sick can you be?
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry Jim, that is the pretender The Farmers Almanac not the Old Farmers Almanac because the 2014 issue is due out September 10, 2013!
Those who want to take a stab at making their own prediction of the trend in Global Mean Temperature over the next 87 years to the year 2100 can use Beta Blocker’s Analysis Framework as their methodology, an approach which uses trends in Central England Temperature (CET) as a proxy for future trends in GMT.
Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker.
The analysis framework illustrated above can summarize and document almost any kind of GMT prediction you want to do, from the most simple to the most complex, depending upon how much additional writing you are willing to generate in support of the summary information shown on the one-page form.
And if you don’t want to go to all the trouble of doing an “analysis” per se, just throw a dart at the CET Pattern Picker Dartboard and you will have a prediction straight away.
@Gail Combs
Yes, Gail, read further down from there – correction noted, made, and walked off with tail between my legs already.
Village Idiot says:
Yada, yada, yada…
He, he – we actually have folks here replying to a self-proclaimed villiage idiot who continually demonstrates his (her?) credentials in each post!
Is this a great board or what?
Gail Combs says:
August 27, 2013 at 7:17 am
Sorry Jim, that is the pretender The Farmers Almanac not the Old Farmers Almanac because the 2014 issue is due out September 10, 2013!
=====
Gail, it is the Old Farmers Almanac….it’s in their press release
http://www.almanac.com/sites/new.almanac.com/files/2014_ofa_usa_press_release_web_rev.pdf
“mere digital masturbation,” – MaLrd you owe me a coffee as I just spewed mine all over the place.
Reality is a concept lost on the modelers. If your model and reality differ your model is WRONG. Abandon or modify it. Full stop!
Given the current troll-like harping on land-based temperature records in the U.S., we need to see more comparisons with that station-induced biased gap against satellite and other global benchmarks. The gap will only grow and the trolls will get more shrill.
John Judge says: @ur momisugly August 27, 2013 at 3:49 am
….they had better come up with something better than ad hominem attacks …
Especially since it’s a bad idea to use ad hominem against a man who can think of a phrase like ‘digital masturbation’ and is not afraid to use it.
I’m glad I unlearned reading WUWT while sipping coffee over papers of any importance.
It is perfectly obvious that the IPCC models are not fit for purpose because they are structured incorrectly ab initio.They are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
A simple empirical approach based on the forward projection of quasi cyclic quasi repetitive patterns is much more useful.Here are the conclusions of a Thirty Year Forecaste update posted on my blog at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
To summarise- Using the 60 and 100 year quasi repetitive patterns in conjunction with the solar data leads straightforwardly to the following reasonable predictions for Global SSTs
1 Continued modest cooling until a more significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and more CO2 would help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !!
The Solar Cycles 2,3,4 correlation with cycles 21,22,23 would suggest that a Dalton minimum could be imminent. The Livingston and Penn Solar data indicate that a faster drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures might even be on the horizon.If either of these actually occur there would be a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario”
Note – I believe that the SSTs are the best metric for climate change because we should really be measuring enthalpy and the SSTs are a reasonable guide to the changing enthalpy of the oceans and the thermal inertia of the oceans smooths out short term noise.Perhaps Monckton could add the HadSST3 and the NOAA SST data to his comparisons.
@Latitude
Yes it is both almanacs and since both rely upon the Sun and its activity or lack thereof, Village Idiot would call them “clever,” methinks. Now all we need is for Villiage Idiot to tell the climate modelers to do the same and leave the impact of CO2 way off in the back field, and we just might get some clever climate modelers.
Paid trolls are mythical creatures. Just like the few hundred regular WUWT posters, they do it for free.
Sceptics don’t have to predict or suggest anything if they don’t want. Monckton is simply pointing out the failed projections / scenarios of the Great Climate Gurus.
PS When you fail you don’t ask someone whether they can do any better. If I write a paper suggesting that the Sun was responsible for most of the recent warming and peer reviewers reject it. I then turn around and ask them whether they can do any better? They will laugh me out of the room. This is what you are suggesting.
Chris4692:
Your post at August 27, 2013 at 6:57 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401060
is warmunist obfuscation at its most extreme.
After waffling about ENSO effects, you conclude saying
NO!
We are discussing how long a period has existed during which there has been no statistically significant trend in the global temperature according to available data sets. The ONLY valid start date is now (because it is the present) and to assess the time series back from now.
Any other start date is ‘cherry picking’.
And it so happens that there has been no statistically significant trend in global temperature for more than 16 years according to all the compilations of global temperature. But the climate models projected there would be a discernible and statistically significant rise in global temperature over that period.
Richard
I get the impression that Village Idiot is a frustrated climate modeler designer, by asking Monckton to give a better prediction. Who else would demand such a thing, and natter on and on about it for so long?
Chris4692 says: @ur momisugly August 27, 2013 at 6:57 am
Determining when the trend change is a bit puzzling….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is all about the statements made by Warmists:
1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones
2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link
3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate
So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.
Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?