By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., is now available.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on this dataset (the bright blue horizontal line through the dark blue data), there has now been no global warming – at all – for 17 years 5 months.
Would readers like to make a projection of how many mainstream media outlets will report this surely not uninteresting fact?
It shows that the Hiatus hernia for true believers in the New Religion continues.
My own prediction is that the number of media reporting 17 years 5 months without any global warming will be approximately equal to the number of general-circulation models that predicted such a long Pause notwithstanding ever-rising CO2 concentration.
Print out the graph as a postcard and send it to the editor of a newspaper near you that has shut down democratic debate by announcing that it will refuse to print any letters at all from “climate deniers”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good post Janice…
You others that say that the 17 years were the hottest recorded. I guess you must believe that the 30’s were cooler than 1998. I think that those temps have been “adjusted” down.
Just sayin.
Janice Moore says:
“There has been NO warming of global temperatures since…
before you were born! Very cool, no?”
Interesting observation. You could also add an extra clause: Although you have constantly been bombarded throughout your life with information that global warming is a fact, there has been NO warming of global temperatures since….before you were born!
This could be a good entry to the Beloit College freshman mindset list. “The Mindset List was created at Beloit College in 1998 by Ron Nief and Tom McBride for the class of 2002, born in 1980. Now in its 15th year, it continues to reflect the world view of entering first year students.” A few references from 1998 include:
11.Bottle caps have not always been screw off, but have always been plastic. They have no idea what a pull top can looks like.
12.Atari pre-dates them, as do vinyl albums.
13.The expression “you sound like a broken record” means nothing to them.
14.They have never owned a record player.
15.They have likely never played Pac Man, and have never heard of “Pong.”
For the 1998 mindset list and all others up to the most modern see:
http://themindsetlist.com/lists/2002/
jones says at February 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm
It’s the same as saying that whatever caused the warming prior to the last 17 years is now exactly balanced by something else – for 17 years.
Which is a remarkable balancing act, unless there is some negative feedback that stops dangerous climate change from happening.
Or…
It’s the same as saying that whatever caused the warming prior to the last 17 years is now stopped – for 17 years.
Which means it wasn’t CO2, as that is still being released.
Or…
It’s the same as saying that whatever caused the warming prior to the last 17 years wasn’t real and the measuremetns are all bogus.
Which menas we know nothing and have to start again.
What else can it mean?
I know, Sir Christopher, that you are a self-confessed “scientific non-scientist” ,that RSS is your preferred data set and you’ve constructed a graph that points down.
But I’m a simple bloke. I look at the “simple running 37 month average” on the 5 data sets on climate4you ( http://www.climate4you.com/ ) and what do I see?
UAH peaked in 2010, RSS in 2003, HadCRUT4 in 2006, NCDC 2006, and GISS in 2006.
The “superimposed plot of all five global monthly temperature estimates” comes out at 2006.
All this while you say that for the 9 years since 1/1-2001 there has been “statistically significant and rapid cooling”, and that in “1995..all global warming stopped”
Sorry, I don’t believe you
Is that the same as saying that most of the warming since 1850 occurred between 1910 to 1940?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
[snip – language, abuse, childish labeling, pretty much across the board policy violation – mod]
Friends:
At February 7, 2014 at 12:39 am Village Idiot says to Lord Monckton
At last, there we have it, the definitive proof that Lord Monckton is right!
And, of course, as always Village Idiot is wrong because – as always – he provides nonsense to demonstrate why – as always – he is wrong! He says
Raw egg white is fluid and cooked egg white is not.
Richard
Hia
I’m detecting that folk feel I’m supporting the warmist agenda.. I’m not, my use of words was an attempt to convey the stupidity of the line Yeo took with Lindzen. I should have clarified my meaning.
It IS how they will portray it…..
Village Idiot says at February 7, 2014 at 12:39 am…
Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you are also clearly wrong.
Even the House of Commons Select Committee has had a panel to talk about the Hiatus and AR5.
Link here.
All six panelists acknowledge the reality: Yes, the hiatus is real.
Are you really saying that
1. Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London
2 Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University
3. Dr Peter Stott, Met Office
are sceptics?
Thanks for the links Village idiot, very useful and informative.
Village idiot is aptly named.
He is wrong of course.
The data shows that there has been no warming for 17 years. Learn to read a graph.
It’s funny how the trolls always come out on a Monckton post, they really hate his systematic dismantling of the alarmist tripe.
Thank you Lord Monckton for fighting evil.
richardscourtney says February 7, 2014 at 1:23 am:
“Lord Monckton is right”
But not about the settled – unsettled settled science, right?
“I’m going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore. This is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over the climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.”
It seems the science shows that climate sensitivity is very low, even below the IPCC’s lowest estimate, on the order of approx 1 degree per century.
No credible scientist disputes the fact that GHGs cause warming all things being equal but the empirical data shows that there must be counterbalancing factors that cause negative feedbacks such as low level cloud albedo, cumulonimbic convection and radiative subsidence at the emission level. The models average out relative humidity and upper tropospheric water vapour and underestimate the sub parameter convective radiative anomalies that lead to more outgoing longwave radiation.
Bottom line satellites (ERBE) have measured increased outgoing longwave radiation with increased surface warming.
There is no mid tropospheric hotspot that is a critical part of the models’ theory on positive feedbacks.
The evidence disproves a net positive feedback.
So the critical point about whether it’s a problem and whether action needs to be taken is answered.
No.
@ur momisugly Lord Monckton.
17 years 5 months you say, and NO warming?
You’d better tell Dana over at Guardian Towers. The fella thinks it’s all hiding in Davey Jones’ locker.
Cheshirered says February 7, 2014 at 2:57 am
Well, he says it’s going into the Ocean but those are just his words. There’s no reason to think he believes it.
You give him too much credit for integrity.
David says: February 7, 2014 at 2:53 am
“climate sensitivity is very low…..approx 1 degree per century”
Now that’s a new concept!
“The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
And I’m the one who’s lambasted for not being able to read a graph! More likely – I’m careful which graphs I trust, who has constructed and with the intention of proving what?
I sent this to Environment Canada, and the Minister of Environment for Canada.
Michael B. Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:44 pm
All I can say is don’t “accidentally” slip and fall overboard. Do enjoy the sights.
Village Idiot:
At February 7, 2014 at 3:47 am you say
No, Idiot. Your assertions are merely further demonstration of your idiocy.
A graph is a pictorial representation of data. It cannot “prove” anything.
A graph represents an understanding of the data which its presenter wants to present.
And “who” constructed the graph is not relevant. The only pertinent consideration is whether the graph is a correct representation of the data or not.
A graph cannot be trusted: it is either a correct representation of the data or not.
You have already shown your ignorance of this in your earlier post in this thread (at February 7, 2014 at 12:39 am) where you asserted that processed data is more true than the unprocessed data. A graph of processed data is misrepresenting the data unless the real data is presented on the same graph and justification for the processing is provided (that justification is also data presented by the graph).
Sadly, Idiot, your post yet again demonstrates that you really, really don’t understand this thing called science.
Richard
jones says: @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm
Is that the same as saying the warmest 17 years on record have occurred in the last 17 years?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Depends on your definition of ‘on record’
Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies
And whether you believe all the ‘Corrections’ to the data is correct. GISS reinterpretation of data in three graphs
Christopher please drop the “Lord” “Viscount” and “Brenchley” rubbish. We are not living in the middle ages now. You think your titles lend you authority as an expert on climate. They do not. They make you look like a narcissistic ponce.
Anthony please stop accommodating Chris Monckton. There is one tiny part of the world stuck in a time warp where ancestral titles still mean something. The rest of the world is a democracy and we couldn’t give a rat’s about the man’s claims to superiority and nobility. You think that by associating with the self-proclaimed upper class, you raise your own status. You do not. You make yourself look like a cousin of Neville Chamberlain.
REPLY: Noted, but it doesn’t change the fact that the temperature anomaly is still flat. If the Pope had published this, your arguments would still apply about titles, and be just as pointless about the conclusion. – Anthony
Michael B. Combs says: @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 7:44 pm
GO FOR IT!
Do not forget though that these people are emotional. It is useful to hit them in the emotions. Here are some we@ur momisuglypons:
USA UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified 21/03/94
The ‘Official Definition’ of “Climate change” from UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (The USA ratified 21/03/94 )
That would make a good T shirt!
AndyL says:
February 6, 2014 at 10:38 pm
I suspect too much is being made of this.
I’m not able to calculate this, but I would make a strong guess that the 1998 peak has a strong influence in making the trend line flat. If that year was not present (or if the temperature was average), I would expect the trend over the last 17 years to be positive.
A simple test for this would be to identify the trend since 1999. Another way would be to lower the 1998 figure to the average for the period so that its influence is removed.
I can confirm your suspicion. The trend is positive when calculated from all months in 1999, except December. You also get a positive trend if you look back only as far as 2006 and 2007, so the start date is important when applying a straight-line fit to determine a trend.
Some more notes on the RSS dataset:
Trend (in degC/decade) since it started in January 1979 = 0.126
Trend since the beginning of the Millenium (Jan 2001) = -0.058
Warmest 12-month anomaly, January to December 1998 = 0.55 (most recent 0.204)
Warmest 5-year anomaly April 2001 to March 2006 = 0.288 (most recent 0.25)
Warmest 10-year anomaly October 1998 to Sept 2007 = 0.267 (most recent 0.231)
But as another commenter has pointed out, the UAH data set shows more or less continued slight warming, unless one cherry-picks a starting date between 2008 and 2010. So which one is right? Or are they both wrong? Can anyone give a logical explanation (other than “we’d like it to be this one”).
What level is the temperature at for the pause and does the actual averaged pause temperature able to vary?
My understanding is that if we had a fall in temperatures for the next year or two that the pause would the actually start at an earlier date albeit at a lower coverage temperature.
In other words the 17 year pause now could become a 19 year pause in 1 year if the temperature dropped enough in 1 year,
Conversely rising temperatures would just mean a shorter pause at a higher average temp.