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)
“You still refer to me as ‘Patrick.'” (Patrick at 5:05am 10/27)
Would you join the ranks of Mr. Ed? Mr. Bill?
Brother Patrick? Citizen Patrick?
Perhaps, you want Saint Patrick? Ah, but, you see while we agree on the essentials, some of us do not follow the Roman Catholic teaching about “saints” and, thus, balk at using such a title.
You really don’t SOUND much like what one would expect in a “saint,” ….. . Hm.
Heh, heh, heh, that was fun.
Thank — you — Mis — ter — Patrick! #(:))
Christopher, Lord Monckton
Well said.
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 27, 2013 at 9:56 am”
Posting one’s full name is one’s choice here at WUWT. You seem to have a problem with that, which is of course, YOUR problem. Take that up with the blogs’ owner if you have an issue (Pathetic and diversionary). In a previous post, if you were quick/smart enough, you would have discovered that I in fact DID post my surname. What is YOUR problem with that?
I find your comments about “truth” rather hilarious as it was you who was, largely responsible, as “climate change adviser” in the early 1980’s to Thatcher, acting on advice from your “office” to “rubber stamp” the UN’s “interest” in climate change (EAU CRU and shutting down coal mines etc). So if anyone needs to apologise, it’s you!
“Janice Moore says:
October 28, 2013 at 11:10 am”
You need to direct that post at the person who refers to me as “Patrick”.
“richardscourtney says:
October 27, 2013 at 7:15 am”
You are welcome.
“Patrick” does seem to have wandered from the point. One takes it, therefore, that he now accepts there was no error in my graph in the head posting. His knowledge of the history of the Thatcher era, like his knowledge of climate science, is erratic and insufficient.
The coal mines were closed because repeated Communist-led strikes had compounded their unprofitability, and the closures predated Margaret Thatcher’s first major speech on the climate, in 1988, in which she announced the funding for what became the Hadley Centre for Forecasting.
That speech was written for her not by me but by my successor, George Guise, who allowed her to predict warming at a rate equivalent to 10 K/century. My own advice had been rather more cautious, merely suggesting that it would be appropriate to find out more about the problem.
During my time at Downing Street, the UN had not established its climate panel, so I am not sure what “Patrick” is suggesting when he says I advised her to “rubber-stamp” its then non-existent “interest” in the subject.
One appreciates that “Patrick” made a clot of himself by endorsing a fatuity that its originator subsequently had the kindness to withdraw, and that he has been blustering ever since. My advice is that he is already in a deep enough hole, so he need not go to the exertion of digging any further. If he is too graceless to apologize, let him be silent rather than compounding his idiocy.
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:30 pm”
“So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward.”
Nothing better to do between 1982 to 1986?!! That’s quite a remarkable, but not a surprising, admission from a former MP. During this time you suggested caution and to find out more about the problem, as you state above. The fact George Guise was the person who actually succeeded you in the job and delivered the speech to Thatcher is irrelevant. He would have presented whatever data/evidence existed at that time prior to that delivery, regardless of your suggested caution (You were not in the driving seat anymore). It is true that after 1988/1989, the evidence and data that was being collected, as stated at the time, was suggesting emissions of CO2 from human activity was not a problem, or at least a miniscule practically immeasurable driver of “warming”. We know you and Thatcher agreed, cautiously. But by then, it was too late! Approval for funding was “rubber stamped” by the UK Govn’t (Thatcher) and then the UN (IPCC – The formation of which NEEDED Thatcher to “rubber stamp” support for it’s inception). My language may not be as “flowery” as yours, so what!
BTW, I recall the winter of 1988, in Portsmouth, UK, wind chill down to ~-25c!
As for coal, it was pivotal in Thatchers goal to address local/global environmental issues (Acid rain “Dirty Man of Europe” label attributed, apparently, to coal fired power and heavy industry driven by it which, as we now know, was rubbish) and politics aside, she cunningly tried to reduce Britain’s reliance on coal. She could use CO2 reduction, just as Palme (Sweden?) did in the mid-70s, as an “excuse” to justify otherwise unpopular nuclear energy. A missed opportunity for the UK! Sweden now supplies ~35% power from nuclear.
You will not find a post by “Patrick” anywhere at this blog claiming you to be “…compounding idiocy.” or “…graceless…” or any other such derogatory comment (I’d be snipped, and rightly so).
My original post was a protest in reply to your accusation that George. E. Smith was a “troll”. He is not hence my post that you might want to retract. Talk of holes and digging. Maybe you should stop now “Christopher”?
“Patrick”, having lost the argument comprehensively and yet having failed to apologize, descends to mere spite. Nevertheless, he now concedes that it was not I who advised Margaret Thatcher to back the U.N. (on the climate or on anything else).
And he is incorrect to assert that I accused Mr. Smith of being a troll. Mr. Smith has since apologized for the troll-like comment that “Patrick” had unwisely endorsed. Perhaps “Patrick” had better go and play in someone else’s sandpit: he has nothing of scientific value to offer here.
Lost an argument, when there was none? I descend to mere spite, where? History is not spite! The only person in this “exchange” who seems filled with spite is not me. I agree, you were not the adviser in the 1988 Thatcher speech, but that speech was based on the information the “Policy Unit” had available and that was largely your responsibility when you were in “service” between 1982 and 1986. In your own words;
“So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward.”
Are you suggesting you had no influence? Are you suggesting that, keeping “…a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government…” as you say, had no influence being the most “science qualified” MP with your Z80 computer at that time?
Patrick:
I write to ask for a clarification of your post at October 31, 2013 at 5:06 am.
Please explain the relevance you see of
(a) the political advice provided to the then UK PM in her preparation of a speech in 1988
to the subject of this thread which is
(b) the proximity of the present to meeting the ‘Santer 17 year warming test’.
Richard
“richardscourtney says:
October 31, 2013 at 5:33 am”
My original post in this thread was a suggestion to “Monckton” to retract “his” statement that George E. Smith was “troll-like”. Can you point to any error in my original post, and since, with “Monckton” and his replies?
Aeternum vale
Patrick:
I understand your reply to me at October 31, 2013 at 6:05 am to say that your post at October 31, 2013 at 5:06 am has no relevance to the subject of this thread. In other words, it is trolling.
Richard