RSS: no global warming for 16 years 11 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The RSS monthly satellite global mean surface temperature anomaly data, delayed by the US Government shutdown, are now available. The data show no global warming at all for 16 years 11 months. This dataset could be the first of the five to pass the strict Santer test: no global warming at all for 17 years.
Since no el Niño is now expected until next spring at the earliest, the long run without any global warming at all is likely to continue for another few months.
CO2 concentration, meanwhile, continues its upward trend. And it is this disconnect between rising CO2 concentration and stable near-surface temperatures that makes the present long hiatus in global warming more significant than the previous periods of a decade or more without warming over the 163 years of global mean surface temperatures. In none of the previous periods was CO2 concentration either as high or rising as fast as it is today.
Climate extremists are prone to show the data since 1970 as an “escalator” with a series of “steps” consisting of decade-long pauses, but an overall rising trend:
However, a trend is not a prediction. There is no guarantee that merely because the trend has been upward it will continue upward. The effect of the frequent supra-decadal periods without warming is to constrain the overall warming rate since 1970 to a not particularly thrilling 1.6 Cº/century equivalent.
Taking the trend since 1950, a fairer benchmark since the period covers a full warming and cooling cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, shows warming at a rate equivalent to less than 1.1 Cº/century.
So, can one clearly distinguish an anthropogenic warming signal in these post-1950 data from the data before 1950, when we could have had no measurable influence on the climate?
The answer is No. Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
In fact, the later period is on the left. Let us determine the linear warming trends on each of the two periods:
The later period has a very slightly steeper slope than the earlier, but only by the equivalent of a third of a Celsius degree per century. On these figures, it seems difficult to justify the IPCC’s assertion of 95% confidence that most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic.
Meanwhile, the discrepancy between IPCC prediction and observed reality in the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index remains glaring. A shame that the IPCC did not deal honestly or clearly with this discrepancy in its latest Summary for Policymakers.
For Santer’s test see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
Related articles
- Dana Nuccitelli Can’t Come to Terms with the Death of the AGW Hypothesis (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Radiative Forcing, Radiative Feedbacks and Radiative Imbalance – The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report Failed to Properly Report on this Issue (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Mystery of the ‘Missing’ Global Warming – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
Quick. Someone grab the goalposts and flee.
“Temperatures between 1983 and 2012 are the warmest in the past 1,400 years [in the Northern Hemisphere],” said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group I.
Did nobody ask Stocker to elaborate?
Janice Moore says:
All during WWII, every day, the BBC broadcast Big Ben’s faithful chimes — just so the Na-z-1s would know that London was. D Day has come for the Envirostalinists. Their doom is sealed. They are raging and snarling like the cornered rats that they are, but, it is only a matter of time until the forces of Truth triumph
***********
In a War, the first victim is Truth.
the BBC is widely noted as being on the side of the forces of evil in the Climate War.
So it should be no surprise that the folks who have been systematically altering the actual temperature data from the past were not above altering the weather of the present.
During WW2 the chimes that were heard on the radio were not the real tones. A change was made to using recorded sounds so as to deny German scientists the ability to accurately determine London’s weather from the tones.
Parliament could have been a smoking ruin and the chimes would still ring for the uninformed.
JohnS says:
“The graphs are quite powerful.”
There are graphs posted here that show how wrong the catastrophic AGW narrative is. Some examples that I like:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
They put the current “carbon” scare into perspective.
(Re: 1:26am)
My dear Stephen (I have not forgotten your generously kind remark to me…),
The view from occupied (by socialists) France would, indeed, appear grim. Take heart! These fellows, too, were likely saying: “Hang on to your hats the ride is going to get really rough.”
But, they were on their way. The tide of the war has turned. While ultimate victory may be months, even years, away, victory is assured, for TRUTH ALWAYS WINS, IN THE END.
Your American ally,
Janice
@ur momisugly all Envirostalinists — Listen up, you slime. In fact, listen to this and remember…
dit-dit-dit-dah… _ … _ your doom is sealed.
Dear Mr. Smith (at 12:49pm)
I was unable to locate the source in which I read the story of “Big Ben’s” being a hero of WWII, thus, I can neither affirm nor refute you. You also, however, have cited no source for your assertion. So, at this point, we have: “she said — he said.”
Be that as it may, the truth that mattered, which was quite clearly communicated to the Na-z-1s, was that if the BBC was broadcasting, London was. If you are correct and the chimes were not live, the essential truth yet remains: the broadcasts boldly proclaimed that London still stood.
And it IS “30 seconds to midnight” for the Environ-a-z1s.
Thank you for, assuming you are correct, correcting the details of my post. You leave us, however, with the impression that you equate the BBC’s using during WWII, albeit for a noble purpose, recorded chimes with the lies of AGW propaganda. Given that the BBC’s message was: “We are here,” I would ask you to consider whether your comments were not unfair (not to mention needlessly demoralizing). Whose side are you on? It is unclear from your post. I hope that you are on the side of truth-in-science and merely have a penchant for pedantic detail, morale of the troops be damned.
Perplexed yet hopeful,
Janice
P.S. Yes, I agree that the BBC are, now, tools of the Environ-a-z1-s.
Janice Moore says:
Whose side are you on? It is unclear from your post. I hope that you are on the side of truth-in-science and merely have a penchant for pedantic detail, morale of the troops be damned.
********
I am on the side of Truth, be it ever so personally painful.
As a Naval Officer I KNEW that, if we lost a war, I could expect to the in the dock at a war crimes trial. But that didn’t stop me from going North to hide like my classmates. The difference being that they went to Canada while I went north of the Soviet Union with 48 Hydrogen bombs, hiding in a submarine.
We make much of the Nazi euthanasia efforts but neglect the fact that they were just extending the American and British laws to their logical extent. The American Eugenics effort was real. (and existed well after ww2) (and we had our own “Brown Shirts” in ww1 — the “American Protective League” a “private” quarter million man gang devoted to instilling a proper war fever in passivist Americans). Sorry, the evil we see in others is just a refection of our own selves.
In my opinion ww2 was started by the bankers in 1933 when Hitler refused to turn over Germany’s finances to a private bank, it just took a few years for them to get the propaganda machine rolling to bring the rest of the population to a frothing boil. How WE entered the war is one of those crimes that remain hush hush. The Navy was busy secretly fighting in the Atlantic, but that didn’t work, so FDR tried the back door approach by doing everything short of shooting to get Japan (Germany’s ally) to attack. (and he was secretly shooting in China with all those “volunteers”). Embargos, confiscating assets, move the Navy in a threatening manner from San Diego to Pearl. In the end he was getting radio reports of the progress of the attack force on its way to Hawaii (and not advising Kimmel or Short). The talk about radio silence was a falsehood — the fleet types were actively broadcasting after they were scattered in a storm. Even the Red Cross had secretly stockpiled supplies on Oahu known only to the folks in DC.
Your comments about morale of the troops was a direct insult. As one of the front line individuals in the Cold War, I take any falsehood to heart. I did not want to die for a lie.. WE entered Vietnam via a lie promulgated by LBJ. The Maddox and Turner Joy were not attacked by the North, and their COs had advised DC that the earlier contact report was in error. But LBJ ignored that and wanting a war got Congress to go along.. And the bankers and war merchants made a fortune.
The young feel immortal and will believe anything their elders tell them, especially if it comes from Hollywood, or grave faced politicians. What good is morale if it is based on a lie. Gott mit Uns reinterpreted by our troops as – We have mittens also.
Compare that with our Syria efforts. Parliament refused to go along and Congress had a massive revolt by the voters on it’s hands until Putin gave Obama a way out with the CWs. We are still financing the “rebels” (who are paid mercenaries) and we finance terrorists in Iran to overthrow the government just like we did in 1953. That is not to say that the bankers will not have their war, they just have to run a better set of lies (the incubator lie worked well but one can not repeat that story)
We have reality on our side. We do not need to stoop to lies and falsehoods to get the unwashed masses to ignore the propaganda from those who seek financial gain from the AGW idiocy.
Well it looks like a load of hooey to me. I don’t see any of your data, Lord Monckton, that plots as a straight line against the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance, so I think you have made a misteak somewhere.
But I’m prepared to wait another 30 or 31 day, and then look again. I always like to give a chap, a chance to redeem himself, and you do strictly speaking, have some time left to make your case !
“”””””…….Noblesse Oblige says:
October 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm
And what is the scientific basis for the 17 year interval. Locusts?…….””””””
Nah ! Cicadas ; Locusts is seven years; they’re an Egyptian thing ; same as frogs.
[snip wayy off topic, we aren’t discussing the president – Anthony]
If you look at Appendix zz, Section 235.199.0.4.5.22.x1, Subsection 0000000000004, you’ll see that Santer was counting in dog years.
“Your comments about morale of the troops was a direct insult.”
It was intended to be.
And the content of your reply confirms that it was well-merited.
Janice Moore says:
“Your comments about morale of the troops was a direct insult.”
It was intended to be.
And the content of your reply confirms that it was well-merited.
************
I will assume that during your service as a volunteer in the military that you came across a totally different type of person than what I encountered. Sounds like your encounters were with easily brainwashed men who were prime candidates for propaganda of the rah rah yay team style of cheering who would fold at the first sign that things were not going according to plan.
I, on the other hand had enlisted personnel who had on average about 2 years of college who were much more rational in their outlook and behavior.(thankfully – since in the event that we lost contact with the western powers we had to assume after 24 hours that the west had lost ww3 at which point we would own the 16 birds. You have no idea of the stress to hear an erroneous announcement “Man battle stations missile” instead of a normal “Man battle stations missile for WSRT (weapons system readiness test) and the implicit statement that the US had just suffered 30 million casualties. ) I had two year of Russian. My Engineer had a collection of posters from the October Revolution. When we were on patrol we had great laughs at the Hollywood depictions of the military and international relations. We could get a better reaction from “All’s quiet on the Western Front” and “Catch 22” than a simplistic WW2 propaganda flick. (Consider “Why We Fight” with the sinister train station call of “Papers Please” that was laughed at by ww2 servicemen verses todays Homeland Security searches.)
Or are you just an armchair military expert, with no idea of the meaning of Duty, Honor, Country; or the reasons that morale could be high in a Confederate army that was starving and had suffered years of defeat by a bigger, better equipped foe because they were defending their homes against a War of Northern Aggression. (and yes, I am eligible for the Sons of the Confederacy by a collateral line decent from a trooper who served under Gen Stands Waite — the Cherokee Army that still fought for months after Appomattox, going home around October IIRC. And that army is a major irony considering they fought on the side of the people who stole their land.)
George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve. Here, as so often, Mr. Smith is guilty of a confusion that one hopes is accidental rather than deliberate and troll-like. The dog-tooth curve shown in gray on the temperature graph is the graph of actual, measured CO2 concentration measured in micro-atmospheres (a.k.a. parts per million by volume). The straight line through that graph is the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data – a standard statistical technique for representing the trend as a straight line calculated to minimize the sum of the squares of the absolute differences between the data-points on the graph and the line itself.
The effect of CO2 in altering the radiative balance in the atmosphere is indeed logarithmic – or, in simple terms, each additional molecule of CO2 has less warming effect than any of its predecessors. However, the graph plots the CO2 concentration itself, not its radiative effect (which would be expressed in Watts per square meter).
It would be better, therefore, if Mr. Smith were not to advertise his own ignorance by describing as “hooey” matters of which, on any view, he has a minimal understanding.
Can someone please help me? I’ve read time and again that the temperature rise from around 1850 or 1900 (there appear to be 2 or 3 start years) until present is about 0.7C. Figure 2 above suggests the temperature rise has been 0.7C since 1970 (1.6C per century), lets say about 1.6C since 1900. Is this because of the dataset used, eg HADCRUT4 instead of HADCRUT3 (before it slayed Phil Jones) or does it imply warming really was 0.7C but from say 1900 with cooling periods until about 1976 which negated overall warming until 1970 to present.
BTW, I hate seeing HADCRUT4 used since it’s creation seems to have only been a response to the lack of warming in HADCRUT3.
Patrick, use woodfortrees to answer your questions.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut3gl
The thing is, the trough in ~1970 is about the same temperature like the plateau around 1870.
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm”
I suspect you will have to retract that “troll like” statement in regards to Mr. Smith at some point.
[snip (and dbstealy’s comemnt snipped too) for being waayyy off topic – Anthony]
[snip lets not go there – Anthony]
[snip -off topic related to snipped comments above – Anthony]
[snip waaaayyyy off topic – Anthony]
Since I have made no “statement” that Mr. Smith was troll-like, there is nothing to retract. On no evidence, Mr. Smith described the CO2 trend-line on my graphs as “hooey”. That was impolite. .He must expect to be taken to task for using hate-speech of that sort. If Mr. Smith or “Patrick” would like handkerchiefs to blub into, no doubt one can help: but if Mr. Smith thought he could get away with perpetrating a gratuitous insult he now knows better. There are certain standards of scientific civility. Mr. Smith’s contribution fell short of those standards. No doubt he will have learned to behave better in future.
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm
George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve. Here, as so often, Mr. Smith is guilty of a confusion that one hopes is accidental rather than deliberate and troll-like.
And…
It would be better, therefore, if Mr. Smith were not to advertise his own ignorance by describing as “hooey” matters of which, on any view, he has a minimal understanding.”
You are implying as much. There was no need to use that language on your part. If you track back through the years of posts here at WUWT made by Mr. Smith you might find he does not have “minimal understanding” of the subject.
[snip – also waaayyyyyy off topic- Anthony]
I am somewhat surprised that Monckton of Brenchley took the time to respond to:
george e. smith says:
October 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Well it looks like a load of hooey to me. I don’t see any of your data, Lord Monckton, that plots as a straight line against the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance, so I think you have made a misteak somewhere.
since the obvious “misteak” is smith’s confusing “atmospheric CO2 abundance” with the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2.
The “CO2 abundance” would be the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is, indeed, increasing at a relatively steady pace as shown in the first graph above. According to the CAGW by CO2 Alarmists, this steady increase will cause a steadily increasing warming of the atmosphere, ultimately reaching a level which will cause catastrophic events. (“Abundance” may be being misused here, too, since if one goes back in time it appears that atmospheric CO2 at about 400 parts per million is well on the low end of what might be considered “normal”. )
Interestingly, they ignore the logarithmic effect alluded to by Mr. smith. We have already reached the point where adding more CO2 into the atmosphere may only make a slight difference in the warming effect of atmospheric CO2, perhaps not even enough to rise above the natural variances in the global atmospheric temperature and be discernible with our current temperature measuring technology.
The “load of hooey” here is coming from Mr. smith.
Climate science skeptics:
— Are you reading skeptical blogs more and more but enjoying them less and less?
— Are you tired of endless arguments over solar variability versus oscillations versus random walk?
— Are you critical of IPCC science but are being challenged to do your own peer-reviewed climate science paper?
— Are you wanting to make your own prediction for Global Mean Temperature in the year 2100?
What you need is ….. Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker
Here’s how it works:
1: – Using the top half of the Beta Blocker form, study the pattern of trends in Central England Temperature (CET) between 1659 and 2007.
2: – Using CET trends as proxies for GMT trends, make your best guess as to where you think GMT will go between 2007 and 2100.
3: – Linearize your predicted series of rising/falling trend patterns into a single 2007-2100 trend line.
4: – Using the bottom half of the Beta Blocker form, summarize the reasoning behind your guess.
5: – Add additional pages containing more detailed reasoning and analysis, as little or as much as you see necessary.
6: – Give your completed form and your supplementary documentation to your friends for peer review.
7: – If your friends like your prediction, submit your analysis to your favorite climate science journal.
8: – If your friends don’t like your prediction:
—— Challenge them to write their own peer-reviewed climate science paper.
—— Hand them a blank copy of the Beta Blocker CET Pattern Picker form.
Just follow these eight easy steps and you too can become a peer reviewed climate scientist!
You owe it to yourself! Get started today!