By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore:
Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a reason my comments are not showing?
dbstealey says:
March 15, 2014 at 6:00 pm
CO2 has a logarithmic relationship but you have to take into account the rate of CO2 rise. This is why the IPCC has such a wide range of climate sensitivity values because they have to take into consideration how much anthropogenic CO2 will be released. Reference 1
Over the last 500 million years there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2, the only correlation that could be determined was that adding up the amount of sun hitting the earth and the forcing from CO2 added up to the temperature of the earth. If what you are saying was true, then CO2 and temperature would have correlated during this period, but it did not. CO2 can be reduced from weathering and increased from volcanic eruptions, completely independent of temperature rise. According to the Shakun et al. data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. Reference 2
Cherry picking atmospheric warming that only makes up 2.3% of anthropogenic global warming and not even taking into consideration any of the natural cooling process is truly pathetic. Reference 3. 4.
Before you start parroting climate skeptic stuff you should at least do your own research. Your Holocene graph ends 150 years ago, that is not the hockey stick at the end, it is hotter today. Reference 5. 6.
dbstealey says:
March 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Of cause it is not complete nonsense. Whats complete nonsense is you trying to claim that it is my opinion when I have referenced the papers numerous times! Reference 7. 8. 9.
What’s complete nonsense is you attempting to pass of what you claim are my opinions as skeptical sciences opinions and then trying to hit back with a, wait for it, an opinion from some lecturer at your university. That is what’s nonsense here db.
You are welcome to reference some of Lindzen’s work but I will most likely find many wholes in it. Sadly it seems to be the norm when it comes to his work. Reference 10.
Runaway warming.. Where did that come from! I have shown over and over that the climate sensitivity consensus is 3C warming. Reference 11.
I am just repeating myself now so I will just cut and past some of my older post from above. Climate models can’t predict volcanic eruptions, reduced solar activity, El Nino/La Nina, increased ocean heat uptake and many other climate processes. Climate modelers have gathered all the data from ocean heat uptake, volcanic eruptions and solar influences and inputted them into climate models. Here are their findings. Reference 12.
And then you go back to the halt, pause or hiatus. Reference 13.
Heat rises.. That really made my day. There are many processes that cause ocean heating, but a key focus is on La Nina’s. This process brings deep cold ocean waters to the surface and in doing so causes a vacuum effect for warm surface water (in other areas) to fill the void. Since the Hiatus there has been a strong La Nina presence. Reference 14.
The next point that needs to be addressed is the deep ocean heat is not well distributed throughout the ocean. It is focused in key areas where La Nina’s form, trade wings blow and areas with high sea level rise. Willis Eschenbach has a good graph that shows the warming is spread out. Reference 15.
The idea is science found that the warming must have been sequestering to the deep ocean so they started measuring down to 1800m. They found that indeed the deep ocean heat content had been increasing. Reference 16.
My References http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10wr508&s=8
@Michael Whittemore
You still do not to understand or do not want to understand that the warming in the past was driven solely by increasing maximum temperatures.
If it or part of it, were due to more GHG in the atmosphere, the proposed mechanism of current AGW implies that this would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It follows naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
(Note that my 0.014 or 0.013 for means over the past 30-40 years is very similar to that obtained by Spencer & others).
If the warming effect were driven by more CO2 or increased GHG we should see minima rising, pushing up the means. That is not happening. Any warming effect caused by more GHG would have to be found as a part of that 0.006 degrees C/yr
However, if you take the last 4 results in the minima table (bottom) , setting the speed of warming out against time you will find a best fit for a binomial with correlation coefficient 0.95 which looks exactly similar to the best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures, except that there is some apparent time delay .
Ergo, minimum temperatures on earth follow exactly what is dictated by maximum temperatures, earlier on, which in its turn is directly related to what energy is allowed through the atmosphere.
There is no AGW, or it is so small as to be indiscernible in the bigger signals.
Now, if you are as clever as I think you are, you must be able to do a similar experiment at some weather stations in your own country just to check if what I am saying is correct…….Alternatively you could get a class of students repeating my own results, going for a more global sample.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
I hope to hear back from you, when you have some results.
Best wishes
Henry
Henry P, you science just isn’t getting through to thias guy.
And he’s still using skepticalpseudoscience as his Appeal to Authority. Really, a cartoonist as an authority! As if. MW opines:
CO2 has a logarithmic relationship but you have to take into account the rate of CO2 rise.
That is an assertion. Nothing more. As usual, it is simply a Belief.
And:
…the only correlation that could be determined was that adding up the amount of sun hitting the earth and the forcing from CO2 added up to the temperature of the earth.
Nonsense. I will listen to Dr. Svalgaard before I accept the assertion of someone with no CV.
And:
Runaway warming.. Where did that come from!
Where did the UN’s 2º emergency come from? If you don’t think that runaway global warming is a threat, say so. As a matter of fact, global temperatures have fluctuated by tens of degrees in the recent geologic past, on only decadal time frames — and with no unsustainable impact on the biosphere.
And:
Heat rises.. That really made my day.
I understand that you don’t know about the 2nd Law. But FYI, heat does rise. There is no hidden heat lurking in the deep oceans. That is the raving of a lunatic.
And:
The idea is science found that the warming must have been sequestering to the deep ocean…
More of the same nonsense. “Must have been”?? Your “science” has found nothing of the sort. But it is pointless to keep arguing with a scientific illiterate. The fact is that the ARGO buoy array shows overall ocean cooling. The only *mild* warming they could find followed “adustments” of ARGO. Even then, there is nothing outside the parameters of natural variability.
I undertand that this guy is a True Believer, and that the Null Hypothesis is something totally outside his understanding. So I recommend one of the religious blogs. He would feel much more comfortable there.
Studies show that with the predicted increase in anthropogenic CO2, there will be warming. http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html#table-spm-1
“A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indi-cating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.” http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf
Lyman & Johnson (2013) “In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0–1800 m.” http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
@DB Stealey
I find it interesting to exchange views with a “warmist” because we can do it completely free here (on WUWT) without any censorship
I find that on the SkS site and other sites this is not possible. You cannot argue on SkS. On SkS, many times when I come back, I find that my comments have simply been deleted…
MW is too deep in it. He could be the very cartoonist you are talking about. Most probably his income depends on the carbon scare being true. He cannot accept another opinion, even if the snow will be standing at his front door.
What puzzles me is that so few people (me and you being the “few”) are really able to expose the CO2 nonsense. Clearly, anyone can see that there is no AGW? In my case, I found that the major data sets did not have maxima and minima. When I started looking at maxima and minima (together with means) it was like looking at the Rosetta stone. I still don’t know why the major data sets do not report on it.
MW says
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html#table-spm-1
Henry says
surely you must see that they base their projection on 1980-1999?
1998 or 1999 was the end of the global warming……
we are now cooling, globally
don’t you see this?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Henry P,
I do not understand how anyone can argue against your Wood For Trees link above. That chart shows conclusively that global warming has stopped. We are left to decide who to believe: M Whittemore, or Mother Earth.
That choice is what they call a “no brainer”. Honest scientists accept what Planet Earth [the real world] is telling us. That is empirical observation, and it trumps every pal reviewed paper and every computer model ever written.
Michael Whittemore says:
“Studies show…”
See what I mean? The alarmist crowd depends on assertions for their argument, while skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] use real world observations to make their case.
The skeptics’ case is air-tight: CO2 continues to rise, making the planet greener, while not causing any global harm. At the same time, global warming stopped many years ago. Only someone with a religious conviction could reject that reality.
Human-caused global warming is a belief now held only by religious True Believers, and promoted by self-serving rent seeking sciebntists and their crazed religious acolytes. Skeptics are the only real scientists.
As Prof Feynman said, we must be skeptical of every claim. If a claim is not supported by experiment or by observation: “…it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Only those hypotheses that can withstand all attacks can be accepted as advancing scientific knowledge. But as we know, the catastrophic AGW conjecture has failed miserably, after being repeatedly falsified.
It is taking time, but the general public is coming around to the view that the climate scare is completely bogus. Because it is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth herself.
dbstealey says
Because it is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth herself.
henry says
true!
but the challenge due to the global cooling period
must not be underestimated.
I expect the period 2020-2040 to be similar to 1930-1950 as far as weather is concerned
Now i know we all came through that period but earth’s population has much increased since that time… Can we do without global warming for more crops?
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
dbstealey says:
March 17, 2014 at 11:37 am
Levitus et al. 2012 “The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system [and the] 700-2000m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean.” http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml
Nuccitelli et al. (2012) “These deeper ocean data account for approximately 30% of the net global heating in recent decades, and thus must be taken into account in any evaluation of global heat flux” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389
Levitus et al. 2012 “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).” http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml
Solomon et al. (2011) “an increase in atmospheric aerosols between 2000 and 2010 caused a -0.1 W/m2 radiative forcing, offsetting approximately 35% of the CO2 forcing and 30% of the net greenhouse gas forcing during that period” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/866.abstract
Church et al. (2011), “Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth’s energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/abstract
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) ”We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature […]three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). […] When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability) […] the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010
MW says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1592687
Michael,
this is like the famous counting twice story that I came accross numerous times when I started my investigations.
We know the oceans heated up in the warming period which lasted until 1998 or 1999.
This is how earth stores its energy for the leaner years that are coming now.
I have explained this to you here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1587595
perhaps you should take the time to read what I wrote there? Otherwise we keep going around in circles, and you still don’t understand how we know that we have started cooling down.
I am sure you are tired of that?
or it is because you want to have the last word here?
March 13, 2014 at 2:02 am
Robert A. Taylor says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm
I do not mind the term, warmest.
I just now spotted your reply. As I said, I do not have a lot of time for this, particularly enough time for a dialog.
Thank you for answering, or at least responding to, some of my questions.
I cannot give examples, and obviously not links, but SkS has to my certain knowledge done what I said. This is not a minor point, this is a method of othering used to make opponents seem fools. The correct method is to leave the comment in and refer to it in the altered post as the reason for the alteration, as is done here. The same is true of deleting relevant comments from opponents, giving the false impression there is no possible counterpoint.
To me what rgbatduke wrote meant the climate models are junk because they cannot possibly work due to known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and because the solution of complex chaotic systems is, even in theory, impossible. For my part I would add “unknown knowns”, meaning, “It ain’t what we don’t know that hurts, it’s what we do know that ain’t so.”
I have looked at the data over the current ice age with numerous highs and lows for temperature which may occur very rapidly in a geological sense (years to decades). As far as I can tell nothing that has happened in climate from 1850, 1950, or 1970 is in any way extraordinary or outside the natural variability. Unless and until climate models greatly improve their past and current ability and verifiabililty, I will maintain the null hypothesis is natural variability, and it has not been disproven.
As to peer review; back in the last half of the 1960’s and through the 1970’s I read many major physics journals in every area of physics. I was shocked at the triviality and poor quality of many papers. Even as a beginner I could find major flaws, even in simple calculus. Some professors told me what was going on, but I didn’t believe it till I found Feinman’s report on reviewing text books. What they said was if the reviewer had any status, he delegated this work to a grad student, and at most he glanced through the paper to see if it seemed on the surface reasonable. Peer review In my arrogant 🙂 opinion is essentially meaningless as an honest one takes much time and effort, and almost no one will do so.
I wish you would answer my other questions, and an additional one: Is the response to increasing CO2 logarithmic as stated by the IPCC?
Out of time again. TTFN
M. Whittemore once again posts his pal reviewed papers as ‘authority’, against the contradicting Authority of Planet Earth.
Who to believe? Whittemore’s pals? Or what the planet is clearly saying?
Because they cannot both be right…
dbstealey says
Who to believe? Whittemore’s pals? Or what the planet is clearly saying?
henry says
the reality is that most of the media is still on the side of MW’s pals
I am just wondering for how long? Until the snow is standing 10 feet at their own doors?
Just shows you again that science is not done or cannot be done by “consensus’,
as if it were some political election…..
You only need one man to get it right.
it is a pity though that the media are not involved yet in warning the farmers at the higher latitudes about the coming droughts.