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?
Shhhhhhh!
[I thought the same about the Arctic in Sept. 2013 – ~50% increase in volume & extent on 2012]
Petere Says:
“Also to be considered is the effect of updating a variety of climate forcings on the models (Schmidt et al. 2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2105, which helps reconcile models with observations to some degree.”
Where I come from, this ‘updating’ is better known as “continuously fudging the model to try and maintain its validity” and is not considered legitimate scientific process.
Give me any data set, and I can create a model (and one much less sophisticated than the climate models) that fits the data near perfectly – FFT will do the job and take only minutes. But ask my model to predict the global avg temps a few years out, and maybe my FFT will not do so well. Although if I concentrate on low-frequencies and throw out the higher-frequency ‘noise’ – my FFT model (that would only cost a few dollars in labor to create) might must predict the global temp for the next few decades far better than the $B climate models. Interopolation is easy. Extrapolation is a beech….
It is kind of unfortunate that it does appear like fudging. But if you improve the data you give the model and it gives you an improved result back, isn’t that a good thing? I take your point that prediction is much more difficult, especially when we don’t know how some of these external forcings like volcanoes might behave in the future.
It is not a pause, hiatus, interval or any other word suggesting this, it has CEASED. Please let us all be precise. If it starts again, that will be a new start.
But for now, it has CEASED – There is no proof that it will restart, although the climate will continie to change as it always has.
Peter OBrien on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 am
I agree. This is the fundamental flaw in the CAGW argument. If it were true, the temperature would always increase dramatically as soon as it started to warm. Historically it has not, therefore the theory is already falsified.
QED
We can spare us all the guessing. BS-ing and curve fitting exercises without determining the CAUSE, or the CAUSATION DRIVERS for the end of global warming….one hypothesis after another without CAUSE CALCULATION… whereas, it is all described and understandably calculated in the booklet on German Amazon: Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung ” JS.
matfromdevon
You seem to be the only one cherry picking. The authors 17 years 6 months claim of no warming starts with a point of today and works backwards to find the end point which creates the longest time in which there is no warming. Yours just takes an arbitrary past date and works forward to find trends.
Glad you found that it has been cooling the last 12 years though.
To Peter Spooner:
You stated that: “…there is no reason why the models should predict the exact timing and magnitude of any pause (or acceleration) in surface temperature warming…” and chided
Christopher Monckton for not answering the question of “why the models didn’t predict”
this phenomenon.
With all due respect, Christopher Monckton did not set the terms of the debate. The
terms of the debate were set by, among others, the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), when, in 2008, they stated:
And by Dr. Ben Santer, when he stated in 2011, that:
Christopher Monckton is simply calling attention the fact that one of the satellite-
derived global temperature records has now met, and more than met, the criteria
that were laid down by prominent exponents of the cAGW hypothesis. The violation
of these criteria now strongly indicates that the current generation of models are
INCORRECT in how they model the enhanced greenhouse
effect. The burden of answering the question is not on Lord Monckton; he is
not the author of any of the computer models.
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
“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?”
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies. . . .
As a confirmed skeptic on CAGW from the beginning I appreciate your continuing comments on this blog. I have learned much from them, just not what you would wish. I apologize for the fleering you and others are sometimes subjected to.
First, if you will check the literature, the possibility of something being wrong with general relativity gravity was acknowledged ab initio, especially in light of what is now called dark mass, in my Astronomy 101 class it was called “the problem of missing mass”. Where is the mainstream climatologist who will state openly for publication the climate models may be junk? Will you do so on this blog?
Second, what is the proportional size of the “anomaly”? The failure of the climate models is drastic, not just barely detectable. Almost all are nearly or actually outside their self defined 95% probability limits. As an aside 95% to me means highly suggestive, confirmation has to be more than three sigmas, preferably five or six.
Third, we have been given standards to judge climate models by accredited mainstream climatologists: 17 years, NOAA; 15 years, (lost the link – some noted climatologist). Prior to this we were always told “decadal ‘anomalies’” were to be expected; decade = 10 years. I will allow a 10% error and say 11 years. This means by mainstream climatologists’ own standards it is legitimate to see how long a so called “pause” has lasted.
Fourth, climate models are NOT the default theory, hypothesis, or conjecture – natural variation is. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. The correct, intellectual honest, baseline for natural climate change is not some 30 year period; it is the entire Pleistocene. The failure by mainstream climatologist to use this has been an obvious intellectual and scientific failing from the very beginning. Nothing has happened by any data set that has been outside the prior natural Pleistocene paleoclimate.
I’m out of time. TTFN.
Reading this post, I am reminded, my daughter born in 1996 has recently reached the age of 18.
Thus the warming hiatus is about to reach adulthood!
The worst / sad thing that will come out of all this climate intrigue, innuendo, propaganda, lies etc in the future, is that when news reports / studies / research comes out with “scientists say” the trust will have been lost
There’s still ice in the top of the tall pines in Baton Rouge. Another complete miss by the forecasters. Luckily, school is closed for Mardi Gras. That didn’t help anyone needing to get across the Atchafalaya today.
Models = Inquisition
Data = Galileo
@tomomason –
A perfect example of “hope and change” and “compassion,” eh? Too bad for the grandma raising her grandkids on a low income, here, now, today, not at some indefinite future time, that she will have to choose between feeding the kids or paying her electric bill. How socially just can you get?
JJ says:
March 4, 2014 at 7:28 am
:
17.5 plus 1.5 equals 20
No. Its the standard math of trends. If temps stay low, the length of the zero trend period grows from both ends. Even more pronounced if temps continue and/or accelerate their decline.
Almost right – depending on future temperatures, of course. If the anomaly remains at February’s level until January 2016, then the zero (or minutely negative) trend finds its way back to January 1996, and there is your 20 years.
My earlier comment put the current 20-year trend at 0.03 deg C/ decade. As has been pointed out by David Dohbro, it is actually 0.05. In my excitement I subtracted 20 from 2014 and arrived at 1995, and so inadvertently stated the 19-year trend.
Maybe they are not climate “models”. They are climate “divas”. They are out of touch with reality.
[snip – we don’t tolerate “d-word” insults here the way you’ve used them, feel free to resubmit your comment without the hateful label – Anthony]
When the 17 year pause is mentioned it might also be a good idea to add that warming will return at some point. A thousands years long climate trend isn’t going to stop, and neither could we stop it if we tried.
Your reference is perhaps a bit too subtle for most to even catch, although any structural engineer that is familiar with the story of the De Havilland Comet would catch on quickly enough.
Square windows were the primary structural cause of those fatigue cracks developing by concentrating stress near the corners. The stress models of the day did not account for that concentration of stress.
Models are not always right especially when the model developer doesn’t know what they don’t know.
Refusing to fall in line with the proven scientific “fact” means that you are sexist, racist, bigoted, and stupid. Get in-line with the Democratic talking points and move on. Pay no attention to the facts…
Mosher writes “because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies. Sometimes the anomaly is small.”
to the question…“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?”
But it was the wrong question.
The right question is “Why did none of the models forecast this hiatus when they claim to have been able to accurately backcast similar warming and cooling periods?”
Because that, Steve, cant be put down to an anomalie.
Why does reality keep diverging from the models? How rude! Silly data…
/sarc (as if truly necessary)
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies.
++++++++++
Mosh, what happened? You attend the Stokes school of hair splitting?
What you failed to mention was the size of the anomaly. To use your gravity analogy, imagine we are in the space station orbiting earth. The climate models predict that if we drop something, it will fall to earth (rising temps). But instead, when we drop something, it doesn’t drop at all. It simply stays where it is (the pause).
So, on that basis you wouldn’t reject the theory of gravity. Instead you would reject the models’ interpretation of the theory. The same with Climate Science. No one rejects the science, what we reject is the models’ interpretation of science because the size of the model vs observation anomaly is 100%.
100% percent of the prediction of rising temps is wrong. The anomaly in the climate models as compared to observations is so big as to be completely useless.
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies.
++++++++++
Unlike climate science, Newton had the good sense to call his own theory a humbug and make it a Law. Newton himself argued that gravity could not work as his theory predicted. Because if it did, then if you waved your hand, every star in the universe would instantly wobble back and forth minutely, regardless of distance.
To this date no one knows how fast gravity travels. Einstein proposed that it would travel at the speed of light and we would see gravity waves as a result, but we have never seen gravity waves, so this remains an unproven prediction.
As well, no one knows what causes gravity. In an era where science insists that every theory must have a cause, we accept gravity as a revel without a cause.
And then there is the final problem. How gravity passes right through star and planets without the slightest effect on its strength, while even neutrinos cannot.
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies
AGW is an anomaly theory.
Anthony,
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study states that land temperature increased 0.9 C in past 50 years and UHIE is negligible. They separated the urban and rural sites and saw identical warming trends. I doubt it.
Let me quantify UHIE using Stefan-Boltzmann law. The average surface down welling radiation on earth is about 520 W/m^2. The emissivity of soil is 0.92. For concrete, it’s 0.95. If you replace soil with concrete, it will have higher emissive power and higher equilibrium temperature. 2.44 C increase in temperature for the same amount of radiation received.
Just put concrete structures like concrete ground, wall or house within 10 feet from the thermometer and that will do it, regardless whether the location is urban or rural. This explains why the BEST team could not detect UHIE. Both urban and rural sites may be affected. Assuming this happened to one out of three sites since 1950. The effect is 0.81 C warming in past 50 years. What percentage of weather stations do you think has this problem?
The BEST team ignored waste heat in their study. The world’s total power consumption is 1.5 x 10^13 watts. All this becomes waste heat with the atmosphere as the heat sink. The waste heat is concentrated in urban areas, which is about 3% of total land area. This translates to an average radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. From SB equation, the equilibrium temperature must increase by 0.7 C.
Humans generate enough heat to account for the observed global warming on land since 1950. AGW theory is plausible. After all, concrete and waste heat are man-made.