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)
“Patrick” continues in floods of tears, and says I have been “dismissive” of comments not to my liking. Well, “Patrick” made the mistake of effectively endorsing an inappropriate remark by Mr. Smith, and the further mistake of persisting in that endorsement long after it was apparent that Mr. Smith had made his inappropriate remark on no evidence. Now that Mr. Smith has graciously apologized for what he had written, “Patrick” is left exposed and should really apologize as well. I mean, I’ve already offered him a handkerchief and a violin to accompany what in Scotland we should call his “greetin'”. Or would he prefer an entire symphony orchestra?
There are a lot of smart people here so I know I won’t get away with any illogical remarks for long, and I will benefit from the education. But here goes. Re logarithmic affect of CO2 on global mean temperature: whether this affect is real or not, the methods used to calculate seem to me incorrect . Let us say that the CO2 that is present in the atmosphere for a long enough period to absorb its quota of LWIR has, by definition become neutralized in this activity (I understand that it re-emits and “fills up” again in equilibrium). It is therefore only the “new” CO2 being added that has an incremental affect, not so? Further heating would then be calculated from delta log CO2 to get delta T would it not? Hmm… I suppose it amounts to the same thing taking taking the whole volume and total T. It’s been a confusing week. However, one should get the wiggles better defined, I would think, if we go with delta Log CO2 and delta temperature.
mkelly says:
October 25, 2013 at 11:53 am
Earl Smith says:
October 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm
A bubblehead.
***********
A Target
(for those non naval types :
there are two classifications for water craft used in an attack cent / CIC [combat information center]
1: Submarines
2: targets
reflecting how difficult it is to detect / kill and the consequent danger to you)
Good heavens, it seems men are such a sensitive gender. Maybe we are tougher because we spend a lot of time raising recalcitrant kids who say they hate us when they don’t get candy at the checkout counter. This type of thing reminds me of when I retreated behind the locked bathroom door to read a sultry cheap paperback just to dull the squeaky crying voices of arguing children.
Really guys, move on with the science discussion.
In response to Gary Pearse and others who are questioning whether the radiative forcing from a change in CO2 concentration is a logarithmic function of the proportionate change in concentration, the function used by the IPCC and the models is that the forcing delta-F is equal to a coefficient multiplied by the logarithm of the proportionate change. The coefficient was 6.3 in the first two IPCC reports but was reduced by 15% to 5.35 in the third.
Prof. Christopher Essex, who did some of the earliest line-by-line radiative-transfer calculations, confirms that the forcing effect of CO2 is indeed logarithmic, and that now that the coefficient has been reduced the function is probably in the right ball-park.
However, George E. Smith and others who say it is more complicated than that are also correct, because many other radiative as well as non-radiative transports make it very difficult to reduce the forcing function to the simplistic 5.35 ln(C/C0) that is now canonical (it was derived, inevitably, from an inter-comparison between three models).
Which is one reason why there is a startling and ever-growing discrepancy between the gradually-accelerating rate of increase in CO2 concentration and the flatlining global temperature response (you should just see the contortions they’re going through at “Real”Climate to try to explain The Pause”).
Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 26, 2013 at 9:44 am
Which is one reason why there is a startling and ever-growing discrepancy between the gradually-accelerating rate of increase in CO2 concentration and the flatlining global temperature response (you should just see the contortions they’re going through at “Real”Climate to try to explain The Pause”).
———————————
You mean the heat hiding in the abyssal depths is not yet settled science?
Stephen Richards says:
“October 24, 2013 at 1:26 am I caution all of you to not get carried away by the idea that the AGW scam is dying. It isn’t and it won’t. I have been watching the media for a very long time now and recently started to count the number of people and the sum of money that is hanging around this scam. I am here to tell you that I couldn’t finish either count with satisfactory accuracy. They are enormous. $trillions (really trillions) and hundreds of thousands of people. It is the most massive scam in history and we therefore have no precedent for how it will finish.”
Agreed
Auto
……
“For us in France, socialism dictates the need to tax and spend and that continues unabated and so will the green taxes. ”
Agreed for the UK – see Blair, Brown [even little Davey] etc.
And the EUSSR [legions of ‘crats – no ‘p’ – who can spend [that’s what they call it] our money far better than we can]
Guess the US might be waking up to the great socialist tax-n-spend-n-waste experiment . . . .
Auto
…..
“France has to close 22 nuclear power stations by 2023 and has no plan to replace them therefore the whole of europe, including the UK, will be affected by loss of feed through power. Hang on to your hats the ride is going to get really rough.”
====
Hmmm – and maybe really rough earlier than we thought.
Tomorrow???
There are predictions [with some caveats, at least] of a (very . .) significant storm through England [and adjoining Regions of the EUSSR] tomorrow night and Monday morning.
See, for example: –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24674537 or
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10406523/Storm-warning-keep-999-lines-free-during-hurricane-force-winds-say-police.html
It is suggested that this may be as bad as the Great Storm of 1987 [When I woke in Liverpool, turned on the radio, and heard “This is the Emergency Service of the BBC.”].
For my two penn’orth, it won’t be as bad. Unpleasant; damages, heavy seas for sure, perhaps deaths, unhappily – but not like the ’87
But we didn’t have the Channel, much of the London River, and elsewhere, infested by windmills then, in 1987. I wonder how they’ll fare through what might be a ten- or twenty-year storm?
And how well anchored are the solar panels in the [somewhat-sunnier – for England] South-West, where the winds will strike first?
A PV panel cartwheeled away from its moorings doesn’t input a huge amount to the Grid, I believe.
Janice Moore:
re your post at October 24, 2013 at 2:12 pm.
Thankyou for your defence of the brave and gallant men from many countries who sacrificed their lives so we and subsequent generations can live free of the evil which spread across Europe and threatened to engulf the world in the 1930s and 40s.
Trebah Gardens are near my home. The beach still has the remains of the purpose-built jetty from which many US soldiers left for Omaha Beach. Many did not return. Each year a memorial day is held by the jetty: serving and retired military personnel together with civilians of all ages meet to honour the memory of those brave men who left from there and to whom we owe so much. US military personnel serving at Culdrose often attend and some of them have told me such celebration of American WW2 soldiers is rare in the US: that saddens me.
The AGW-scare is a scandal. But it would have been impossible to oppose such things – and worse – were it not for the sacrifice of those like the young men in the landing craft shown in your video.
Remembrance Sunday will soon be here again. We owe those men. And we cannot know the true enormity of what we owe them. People who trivialise our debt need to be decried.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
October 26, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Here we remember too the 100,000 Americans who died fighting Communism, & largely succeeded in wiping that scourge from the face of the earth. Most Korean War vets who survived are also gone now, along with 2/3 of those from Vietnam.
milodonharlani:
re your post addressed to me at October 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm.
My post you answered was a support of Janice Moore in her defence of US military personnel who suffered in WW2. I did address those who fought in later wars up to the present with my comment about the importance of Remembrance Sunday.
You specifically mention the Korean War. The US was not the only country involved in that conflict, either. For example, this link lists the British forces who fought in that war
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/British-Forces.html
Obviously, I need to clarify what I was trying to say in my support of Janice Moore. This was the salient message I intended to provide in my post to Janice.
“The AGW-scare is a scandal. But it would have been impossible to oppose such things – and worse – were it not for the sacrifice of those like the young men in the landing craft shown in your video.
Remembrance Sunday will soon be here again. We owe those men. And we cannot know the true enormity of what we owe them. People who trivialise our debt need to be decried.”
Richard
I knew British Korean War vets. About 1300 died or went missing. There were also lots of Commonwealth personnel there, killed in their hundreds. Australians served in Vietnam with distinction & many Canadians volunteered for service with US armed forces, more than Americans going to other way to avoid the draft.
When speaking at Memorial Day & Veterans’ Day (as it’s now called), I make a point to mention our allies. The Americans you met must be from big cities. In rural America, which has always contributed disproportionately to the war dead, we still observe these remembrances solemnly.
Dear Richard,
Thank you, very much, for your kind affirmation of my attempt to (once again, smile) boost the morale of those fighting for Truth in Science. It’s so nice to know that someone appreciated what I wrote.
That you and others pause in England, each year, to remember what those brave young men did is touching. There should be, as you pointed out, more such celebrations in the U.S.A.. People are naturally self-centered and forgetful (or simply ignorant of history). For others, their brains are firing away okay, but their hearts are hard and cold. People like you and those greathearts who join you on the coast of England are rare, indeed.
The world owes the biggest debt of gratitude, nevertheless, to the British who fought on, alone, for such a terribly long time. Thank you.
And, yes, Mr. Harlani is, indeed, right to add that the Korean War (and though their valiant efforts were sabotaged by Congress (just as MacArthur’s were in Korea by Truman), also those of the Vietnam war against communism) vets also deserve to be remembered and honored (all of them, including those of the other “U.N.” (lol, the U.N. was (and is) a blank cartridge, lots of noise….) coalition forces, including, significantly, the British).
“Auto” above says a big storm is on the way. Batten down the hatches, reef the sails, drop the hook, and….. HANG ON! Do take care. Still praying for your friend. Hope all is well.
Your ally and sister in the fight for Truth,
Janice
P.S. If you notice after reading this that my post here got snipped (I’m cringing a tiny bit already), if you would be so kind, please post an “I read it” *ping* — thanks.
Janice Moore:
This is my *ping* as requested in your post at October 26, 2013 at 1:59 pm.
Yes, the contribution of the US troops whom you highlighted is valued here. There are many memorials to them in coastal towns where they trained and were billeted. Importantly, the disaster at Slapton Sands was ‘covered up’ by both your and our governments for decades, but it is now remembered each year with the event being partially funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund so the lives of those US WW2 soldiers is officially recognised as being part of British Heritage: this link tells more of that
http://www.exercisetigerslapton.org/
Sue obtained an infection but that is now dealt with and recovery is back on schedule. Sincere thanks for your interest. I have been away doing my ‘shift’ in looking after her, and have returned home this afternoon because I have some duties in the morning.
Richard
Britain didn’t fight completely alone from June 1940, when Hitler overran France, to June 1941, when the German dictator invaded the USSR & Stalin switched sides.
Besides forces from the Commonwealth nations, such as India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc, & the colonies, she was aided by volunteers from the USA & elsewhere, French, Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Norwegians & assorted other freedom fighters in Europe, Africa, Asia & Oceania, as well as the Resistance in occupied Europe. At least equally important were the sailors, airmen & merchant mariners who sustained the Home Islands during that year at great cost in life & treasure, plus the civilian shipyard crews, plane, tank, truck & equipment builders. Much of the world was behind her.
US Flying Tiger pilots (some of whom I knew) were also fighting Japan in China, as our sailors had been doing since 1937.
First combat by FTs wasn’t until Dec ’41, but their P-40s arrived in Burma in spring of that year.
Richard Courtney:
Thanks for sharing that commemoration. First class.
(and thanks for the *ping* — phew! made it!)
Janice
I think I’m under moderation for mentioning the name of a German dictator, or maybe being off topic.
This is way off topic, but speaking of Anglo-American cooperation, a lot of stuff was declassified 30 years after the late unpleasantness in the South Atlantic. Last year, the in-fighting in the Reagan Administration over the Falklands became public. SecState Haig & UN ambassador Kirkpatrick wanted to back Argentina, while SecDef Weinberger & CIA deputy chief Inman wanted to tilt toward Britain. SecNav Lehman got Reagan’s agreement to lend the Royal Navy USN amphibious ship (in effect a USMC Harrier carrier) Iwo Jima if Britain lost one of its then two jump jet carriers, Invincible & Hermes.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165945/Not-neutral-Ronald-Reagan-secret-plans-loan-U-S-warship-Britain-aircraft-carrier-lost-Falklands-War.html
milodonharlani:
Thankyou for the info. in your post at October 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm.
However, as you say, we are now way off topic (and the fault for that is probably mine) so I thank you for the post and leave it at that but not with any intention of disrespect.
Richard
None felt.
In a lame stab at relevance:
http://www.kew.org/science-research-data/directory/projects/falkland-islands-climate-change.htm
An urgent national action plan is needed to save the Falklands from the ravages of climate change!
Reminds me of Pope’s “doggerel”:
“I am His Highness’ dog at Kew.
Pray, tell me sir, whose dog are you?”
@Monckton of Brenchley says: October 26, 2013 at 7:28 am
You still refer to me as “Patrick”, even after stating it’s my real name, and yet you respect the title of Mr. Smith (Even though he publishes his full name, a practice I do not support nor follow btw but will never refuse people that freedom. A policy at this site I agree with). I have responded to your comments in quotes (Not this time), at the start, to isolate the actual post, date and time, and that is in no way an insult. It identifies the post, person, date and time, I am responding to so that there is no ambiguity as to what comment I am responding to. Would a “name” of Davis of London be more acceptable to you? Pathetic! Given your position of affluence and influence (In the Thatcher years), your post(s) has convinced me that you are no longer tolerant, nor even consider, alternate opinions. Have you considered changing your name, by deed poll, to Al Gore?
Patrick:
re your post at October 27, 2013 at 5:05 am.
Why not provide the apology which you owe to Lord Monckton instead of the silly evasions and excuses in your post?
Richard
“richardscourtney says:
October 27, 2013 at 6:43 am”
An apology I owe? None is deserved, at all.
Patrick:
Thankyou for your answer (at October 27, 2013 at 7:01 am).
I always enjoy a good laugh. And that answer funny; really, really funny. Thanks.
Richard
One notes that “”Patrick” does not have the courage to post here under his full name. He cowers behind the anonymity of a first name without a surname. He made the silly mistake of
endorsing an argument by a third party that that party later had the kindness and common sense to withdraw upon being confronted with the evidence. He now lacks the grace to join the third party in apologizing. Instead, he compounds his error by blustering to the effect that in his opinion I am intolerant of other people’s opinions. It is science, not I, that is intolerant of mere opinions. The scientific fact is that the graph about which the third party had made (and has now withdrawn) an objectionable remark contained no error of any kind. “Patrick”, in failing to resile from an indefensible and now-abandoned position, is out of his depth and out of his league.
The true-believers in the New Religion have the money, the power, and the glory: but we have the truth. If “Patrick” or anyone else here tries to divert attention away from the truth, he will not meet with approval: for the truth is our only weapon against the now-failing climate scam, which is why I and others here are vigorous and, where necessary, blunt in its defence. If “Patrick” still thinks there was any error in my graph, then let him stop sniveling for long enough to identify what he considers to be an error and explain why he considers it to be an error. Otherwise, let him be silent.
“””””……Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 26, 2013 at 4:49 am
I am most grateful to Goerge E. Smith for his kind apology. We can now draw a line under the affair, and he is free to choose whether it is logarithmic, linear or exponential……”””””
Your words are much appreciated, but I still feel really silly. You mentioned that “A load of hooey” is very non-scientific. I agree, which is why I felt sure you would immediately discern that my post was a spoof. My point, to the extent that I had one, was simply that the recent historical data, covers such a small range of CO2 mole abundance in the atmosphere, that one cannot determine if it follows any formal mathematical relationship to the Temperature, and your first graph, in light of the rising CO2, suggests no relationship at all.
For the record, I have NO idea, whether there is any cause and effect relationship between CO2 and Temperature, nor do I have any special insight as to what such a relationship might be. Your second graph, with the red trend line, and the blue staircase, makes the point that the interpretation of data, is often in the eye of the beholder, rather than any reality.
The Physics, or Physical Chemistry of GHGs in the atmosphere; is rather well established; but how that influences global climate, is much less so. And my position really is; “I don’t know.”
The 17 yr (almost) hiatus; or is it “recent maxima”, leads one to ask, when is the other shoe going to drop. Are we in for a deep cold snap ?