Satellites show no global warming for 17 years 5 months

About the chart
Horrors! I just realized you’ve done this in the colors of the left coast team that just won the american-type football big game. Thanks, though. It downloaded fine and now resides on my hard drive.
For Kathy
The 17 year thingy: Some years ago a member of the “climate Team” expressed the view that 17 years would be indicative of a problem in the Team’s approach to modeling Earth’s atmosphere and taking its temperature.** Apparently, graduate students at several universities poured over hundreds of model runs and could find a “pause” of only about 15 years so the next logical jump was that 17 would not happen in the real world. [I can make leaps of imagination too – I don’t know what really was done in those ivory towers!]
As the 17 year pause got near, the necessary length to be a problem was reset (moving the goal posts) to 30 years or something. No one really cares about the latest statement from “the Team” because “The 17-year Pause” was stated first and boldly. It is the icon of moment and is thus the reason for titles, such as for this post, to incorporate it.
____________
**This used to be done under the arm (Stevenson screen) but the Team now thinks the appropriate place to check Earth’s temperature is in some deep hole where the Sun doesn’t shine.

brians356 @ur momisugly February 7, 2014 at 9:03 am –
😉

@Mike Melloir
“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.”
You should remember that the next time you address someone with a Phd. And I never heard of an expert of anything being called a Lord. Finally, why don’t you explain your use of the word ponce?

I am sure the CAGW believers will say we are “cherry picking” to get this result. However, cherry picking is selecting BOTH the beginning and end point. When one of the end points is the present, that is not cherry picking. No warming in 17 years 5 months is just what it is, no warming.
The pause continues.
I think his point is that if one fits all intervals from the present backwards, the longest interval with either no warming or cooling (relative to the present) is 17.5 years. There are obviously many points one could terminate with active cooling — anytime in the 1997/1998 ENSO pulse, for example. There are also many points where one could terminate with active warming — right after this pulse in the rebound.
If you go back before this, there is warming visible all the way back to the start of the RSS record, but at the modest pace IIRC of 1C/century give or take a hair. We cannot go back beyond this with apples to apples comparison, but if one goes back to 1850 in e.g. HADCRUT4, the overall warming across the entire HADCRUT4 record is a modest 0.8C divided by 164 = 0.5C/century:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1800/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend
Note well that the straight line is not a terrible fit to this — an even better (but less significant) fit if one accounts for the (large) probable error in the graph. Note also the clearly visible double oscillation around the linear trend, with period of roughly 60 years. Note the nearly identical warming that occurred in the first and second half of the 20th century, the first half with no help from CO_2 the second half (according to the warmist dogma) with no help from nature.
The issue is not “the planet has not been visibly warming since the end of the Dalton Minimum as an extension of the Little Ice Age”. That’s almost certainly true on the basis of both thermometric data, human historical report, and various proxy data, nobody serious contests that although as I like to point out how MUCH warming has occurred is highly uncertain because all global thermal estimates have a substantially increasing error bar (lack of precision) as one goes back in time, never displayed on any graph (wood4trees CAN’T display it — the data isn’t there AFAICT). The real question is: “Can all or any specific part of the warming at any point on this graph be reliably and quantitatively attributed to CO_2 increases in the atmosphere”.
The answer is a very simple “no”. This, too, really isn’t a matter of discussion. The sole basis for attributing any portion of the warming to CO_2 are GCMs fit to the time that CO_2 was increasing with the prior assumption that it was the primary cause of the warming observed in the latter half of the 20th century, ignoring the fact that the warming there precisely matched that in the first half without the help of CO_2 at all. Aside from the fact that this makes the model predictions self-fullfilling prophecy across the training interval, one cannot validate any predictive model with the training data, and I have yet to see any evidence that a GCM could predict even the 164 year span of HADCRUT4 based on the parameters that fit 1970-2000 or thereabouts. And as we all know, most of the GCMs in CMIP5 (if I have the acronym letters right, sigh) are in bad disagreement with the entire interval of temperatures after their initialization, producing as much as 0.6C entirely spurious warming by the present compared to the flat temperatures observed over the entire interval.
So “the pause” isn’t about any sort of disproof of AGW, GW, CAGW, CC, ACC, CACC. It is all about the models. Our sole basis for believing any or all of the claims for continuing anthropogenic warming and possible consequent catastrophe is the predictions of the GCMs. The GCMs are not validated theories with known predictive skill, they are themselves complex highly complex hypotheses of no use whatsoever until they have been validated. Many of them are actively failing their validation — indeed, one would be tempted to say that a fair number of them (all the ones that result in absurdly high climate sensitivity) have failed their validation.
I honestly don’t think that most of the climate scientists out there do not know and understand this. They just don’t know exactly what to do about it, besides cross their fingers and pray for a massive super-ENSO that pops global temperatures back up to somewhere NEAR their extrapolations instead of steadily evolving flat to slightly falling out of the entire range predicted by all of them. Odd as it is for any human to hope that we are facing a possible disaster, because the alternative is for them to (very minimally) “lose face”. But that’s what the world has come to. One can hear actual satisfaction oozing from the voices of those that interpret every extreme event as proof that we are en route to catastrophe.
Everybody knows that if you sin against God (oops, I mean “nature”) you will be punished, afflicted with diseases, poverty, and misery (oops, I mean drought, floods from rising seas, superstorms, scorching heat) and cast into an eternity (oops, thousands of years) of hell in Hell (oops, on Earth in the form of a “changed” climate). Preachers of both sects take great pleasure in delivering sermons transforming every bad thing that ever happens into proof that God/Nature is watching you and it all is your Just Desserts. Or was that Just Deserts. I get confused.
Religion masquerading as science as a very bad thing. Science masquerading as a religion might actual be worse, though.
rgb
rgb

Kathy says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:05 am
17 years and 5 months is an odd interval. What does the data show about warming over 20 years, 15 or 30?
Here you are. This shows 5 data sets with the information you want.
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global temperature trends

I have a simple question. I think. Doesn’t this 17 year, 5 months hiatus in warming (assuming that satellite temperature data is the best we can get) falsify the greenhouse gas theory with respect to CO2? Warming has “paused ” and atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise un abated. There appears to be no cause and effect. Isn’t this true?

Mike Mellor @ur momisugly February 7, 2014 at 4:18 am;
Titles and honorifics are not anachronisms, or rare; neither are they in some/any way inappropriate, or useless.
We continue to instill their use in children, at public school, where Teachers are normally addressed & referenced with various combinations of titles and/or honorifics. The head teacher running the local schoolhouse, is always “The Principle” (etc).
Police Officers, medical Doctors and Nurses, Judges, Elected Officials and lots of others, are “typically” addressed/referenced, using special terms.
In perfect truth, walking up & down the aisles of my local supermarkets, one hears staff & customers in all combinations speaking & referring to each other using “Sir”, “Ma’am”, and others – not “universally” and always, no – but rather routinely & commonly – yes.
Not only do we still use Titles for ‘higher-ups’ … our organic culture at the grass roots keeps honorific forms of address entirely & pragmatically relevant, among & between the ordinary citizens.
Whatever could you have been thinking …, Sir?

Janice M at 11:49
It has been cold in central Washington where we have lived for as long as we have lived anywhere but I’m from closer to Pittsburgh or Cleveland and Nancy is from Atlanta, and we also lived in Cincinnati. Anyway, it appears folks are having a bit of fun on this thread. Merle Haggard has a hit regarding the way I feel about cities, look it up: “Big City”