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.
“You did not see people trot out feynman or popper and demand that the laws of gravitation were falsified. There was an anomaly.”
Well, maybe if the climate models had missed by the temperature equivalent of .6 kph over 10 years you could dismiss it as an anomaly and that would make sense.
But these climate models are way off and have zero record of predictive success, so why should they get the same benefit of the doubt as the theory of gravity?
It is obvious that the previous warming trend (from ~1975-2005) has cooled – at least down to 0. (i.e., the 2nd derivative.)
(PS, this appears to be cooling back towards the long term cooling rate since the Holocene optimum.)
I realize I am a bit late on this thread. If you look carefully, the first point in the satellite data, back in 1979, is at about the same level at the most recent point. In between, there’s a dip, then a rise (with a peak that is clearly not part of the secular trend), and then a plateau. To standard linear regression, the line of best fit through these points has a slight upward tilt. But, this is based on the (falsifiable) assumption that there is a linear trend in the data. (I believe the data would reject the assumption of a linear trend.) Thus, the regression line is not a proof of a linear trend but rather the result of an assumption of a linear trend. You climate guys have to learn more about statistical analysis. Climate is complex, with lots of cross-causation (or feedback), problems of measurement, and unknown factors (or randomness). While the National Academy of Sciences does not take issue with the argument that human activity has been the main cause of global warming during the second half of the 20th century, it does recommend more appropriate statistical analysis. Check it out:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430
Village Idiot says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:16 am
Of course the RSS data set (known by Sir Chris as the “Received Data Set”) is looking by all accounts as a bit of an outlier when compared to other global temperature estimates.
This can easily be seen, for example, when comparing the temp trend around the years 2002-2006 for all 5 data sets. The simple running 37 month average highlights this nicely – only RSS showing a downward trend.
http://www.climate4you.com/
Ought he RSS crew to look again at their data processing and adjustments to see where the problem lies?
——————————
This blog has looked at these issues before. All 4 of the other data sets have been significantly fiddled with (‘adjusted’). Most of these adjustments are to suppress historic temperatures, and elevate modern temperatures. Of course this makes no sense. The main error that the ground based instruments exhibit are sighting, and UHI. Both of these usually inflate modern temperatures, while leaving historic temperatures about right. The temperature adjustments are in the wrong direction, and artificially increase the warming trend. So far, to my knowledge, RSS has not made adjustments. It would be quite hard to justify…
I look back to 1980, and see the anomaly at +0.2. I look at 2014 and see the anomaly at +0.2.
I see absolutely no reason to give the children nightmares.
Anyone who states they have been pushing the warming agenda “for the children” gets free double-hockey-sticks.
Mosher’s post-normal science at work = Wayne’s top ten “reasons” for the 17 1/2-year warming halt. Impressive. Not.
@Jeff in Calgary
All major data sets are showing a cooling trend from 2002:
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
@Christopher (or may I call you Chris?)
I have compared the RSS dataset with that of the SST data and they look remarkably in the same trend, and even have similar slope coefficients
http://www.woodfortrees.org/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/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1996.5/to:2015/trend
Note that the yellow line is what you are quoting.
As stated before, you keep making the period that shows no warming longer, but what is happening on earth is different. The other lines that I have drawn should be telling you that it has actually started cooling.
Unfortunately the current US cold and freezing up of the big lakes is no outlier/
We are globally cooling as 4 major datasets are showing:
Currently, you would not notice much at the lower latitudes as more water vapor condenses which releases enormous amounts of energy. But I did pick up a definitive trend at the higher latitudes:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/southern-sea-ice-area-minimum-2nd-highest-on-record/
Even Nasa admits that antarctic ice is increasing
We are cooling from the top [90] latitudes down.
Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.
According to my calculations we are about 7 years off from the start of a similar drought period as happened in 1932-1939.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
No warming here in Michigan. We shattered low temp records for March that have stood for a hunderd + years.
Please Al Gore, where’s the heat?
Average cooling for 8000 years!
With a small drop, 0.5 degrees, the 17 years will be pushed well back into the 60’s. Yet scream they will.
Hmmmn. Funny thing though – That Nature article you cited does NOT explain nor demonstrate ANY global climate model series that duplicates the past 17.5 year flat-line i global warming.
Rather, your Nature story ONLY tells “how” climate so-called scientists are trying to change how they are trying “communicate” the demonstrably false results of their global models to show that global warming DOES exist even though the temperature has not changed!
Instead, why don’t you actually SHOW US the thousands or hundreds or dozens or even ten model runs that DO SHOW an 18 year flat-line in the global temperatures while CO2 increases at an ever-steady rate?
@theoutback
“This Ukraine situation must be a dream for European Greens and they will push it for all it’s worth. Expect more fib stories about the climate, the masses are conditioned to this now. It is a much harder sell to use the Crimea as the motivation to go renewable and the EU would not want to paint the Russians in the ways of old lest it starts another “cold” war and turns them ever more inwards.”
The increase in the use of renewable and gas while dropping coal has place the Europeans in a difficult position. They need the gas-fired back-up stations to fill in for the renewables. Condemning coal has promoted gas (as is the wet dream of the US CAGW crowd). A lot of that gas comes from Russia. The pipeline runs through the Ukraine. If the Ukraine splits into two parts you can bet your a$$ the Ukrainians will try to cut off the money flow to Ru$$ia from the EU by disabling that pipeline. Cold war indeed – the EU will have to boost electricity production using coal. The public will have the Green$’ heads if they refuse.
Gotta luv it –
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430
“Authors
Committee on a National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling; Board on Atmospheric Studies and Climate; Division on Earth and Life Studies
Description
As climate change has pushed climate patterns outside of historic norms, the need for detailed projections is growing across all sectors, including agriculture, insurance, and emergency preparedness planning. ”
Since when has the climate been pushed outside of historic norms?
Really?
One of the best comments this week, Congrats.
When you analyze the trends of RSS the correct question is: Has the trend since 1979 changed significantaly? The answer is: no! Look http://www.dh7fb.de/reko/rsstrends.gif and compare the failurebars at 95% confidence-level. The trend since 2001 is negative, since 1993 not significantly positive…anyway: we do not see a significant difference in the trends. Of course you should use 12-month avererages because of autocorrelation… and so the answer to the thesis of the article is: you are right, the data of the lower troposphere don’t show warming for 17 1/2 years…anyway: so what? It’s randomly!
ferdberple says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:54 am
here is another benefit
============
NASA funding for space exploration was diverted for a “trip to planet earth”. After landing on the moon, NASA now lacks even the capability to launch a human into orbit. having spent $150 billion to build the ISS as a first step in permanent space exploration, NASA now plans to de-orbit the station. which is no big deal since only the russians have the capability to go there. with events heating up in crimea, the US will be forced to eat crow before they can next service the ISS.
didn’t anyone ask, “what happens if the ruskies don’t play nice”, before the shuttle fleet was scrapped?
*******************************
With benefits like you list, who needs liabilities?
http://www.universetoday.com/109721/next-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-gets-landing-legs-for-march-blastoff-to-space-station-says-elon-musk/
Mosher has OCD for his smarmy little complaint about the scientific method. He has to trot it out every week or so, or the itchiness overwhelms him. If a somewhat relevant post doesn’t offer itself up for him to attach his nonsense to, then he will simply make a non-sequitur of it, as he has done here.
Its sad, really.
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
——————————————-
Sort of a strange analogy Mosh. Likening a single, small anomaly in a theory that has been precisely understood (for prediction purposes) for over a hundred years (or 300) and been successfully replicated countless times to a theory that has a large anomaly, is not well understood, constantly evolving to fit the data, and has never been successfully replicated. I think a more appropriate response to the post you quoted would be “because they are most likely all wrong.” And, for whatever reason, your response made that answer quite clear.
I have been perusing the pages of Watts Up With That for some years and it has become clear that the following points are indisputable:
1.The theory of green house gases was raised in the nineteenth century and, as far as carbon dioxide having a significant effect, was debunked not long afterwards.
2. Those who resurrected the theory did so for political reasons.
3. Having staked their political, academic and/or financial careers on the theory these people are forced into predicting ever more dire consequences of “global warming” and have at every opportunity exaggerated, manipulated and falsified temperature records to bolster their account to the extent that if the globe were actually cooling, the world would be none the wiser, until it was too late to take effective action.
4. Global warming, if it were indeed occurring, is historically always preferable for the growth and development of biological species than global cooling.
5. Warmism has taken on all the attributes of a religion in the sense that believers cannot be dissuaded from their belief system and simultaneously, they feel the need to attack those who disagree, calling them heretics and deniers. In this they are no further along the evolution of science than their ideological forbears, the Aztecs, who insisted that only human sacrifice could guarantee sunrise each day.
I applaud Christopher Monckton for his tireless efforts in combating the absolute balderdash the warmists spout. Good for you Christopher!
Michael E. Newton (@pathtotyranny) says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:25 am
If you choose a different starting date, say March 1998 or so, how negative is the trend?
You’ve missed the point and are feeding the claims of cherry picked dates. First, the starting date is TODAY (more specifically the most recent month’s data). Second, and most important, is the other end is calculated not chosen – the earliest month in the data set providing a zero trend from today. Start and end do not have to run left to right.
The CAGW predictions are in the same category as Johannes Stoffler’s
1499 End-of-the-World-as-We-Know-It prediction of a global deluge in
February 1524, because of the number of planetary alignments he calculated
for the year, 16 of which were to occur in Pisces, a watery sign of the Zodiac.
The prediction got around the known world about as fast and about as
credulously as CAGW today has. After all, “the science was settled!”
People sold low-lying land cheaply to less credulous purchasers.
Boatbuilders experienced a boom as the wealthy invested in arks and
the not quite so wealthy in sturdy floatables.
Come February 1524, and behold!
Across much of Europe, there was no rain. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Did those who sold their land in a panic get it back?
Did the astrologers go out of business?
Has mankind learnt?
Of course not.
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
Thank you for your link to the Pioneer anomaly. A fascinating tale about a science that works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Pity about climatology. It seems to be barking up the ‘new physics’ tree when ‘mundane causes’ might be a more productive avenue to research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly#Previously_proposed_causes
Jeff in Calgary: March 4, 2014 at 9:40 am
“All 4 of the other data sets have been significantly fiddled with (‘adjusted’)”
RSS is not the “Received Dataset”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus#Defense_of_the_Textus_Receptus
All 5 datasets have been ‘fiddled with’ – adjusted, corrected, processed. UAH & RSS use the same raw data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analysed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems. The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”
Lots more ifs, buts, maybes and excepts on the link
Thanks Chris!
Here are some more linear trend statistics of RSS data (though I shiver doing linear regression through none-linear data, it serves an informative purpose I guess…).
Last 5 years: y = -0.028x + 55.869, R² = 0.060
Last 10 years: y = -0.003x + 5.772, R² = 0.003
Last 15 years: y = 0.003x – 4.795, R² = 0.005
Since 1998 peak: y = -0.002x + 3.764, R² = 0.003
Last 20 years: y = 0.005x – 9.893, R² = 0.029
Since 1979 (all data): y = 0.012x – 24.757, R² = 0.349
First 20 years: y = 0.0153x – 30.358, R² = 0.184
Everybody is free to draw their own conclusions, but the data doesn’t support “accelerating global warming” or even “warming” over the past 20yrs…. Instead the data supports “an accelerating global cooling” (since the trend over the last 5yrs is more negative than that over the past 10yrs, which in turn is more negative than that over the past 15yrs)
John Craig Mar 4 6:40am finds “the argument that in a warming world the air will hold more water puzzling“. See (2) in http://www.weatherlogistics.com/seasonalforecast/?tag=clausius-clapeyron-relationship for an explanation of the science behind it (the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). A good discussion of it all is at http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/kininmonth-Clausius-Clapeyron.pdf
For those who want to compare the data sets, here is the WFT of all 5 since the 1998 ElNino settled down at the beginning of 2001.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001
You will note that it is UAH that is actually the odd one out, mainly because it didn’t register quite as large a jump from the 1998 ElNino.