Despite IPCC doom report, this dataset of datasets shows no warming this millennium

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

HadCRUT4, the last of the five monthly global datasets to report its February value, shows the same sharp drop in global temperature over the month as the other datasets.

clip_image002

Our dataset-of-datasets graph averages the monthly anomalies for the three terrestrial and two satellite temperature records. It shows there has still been no global warming this millennium. Over 13 years 2 months, the trend is zero.

 

Start any further back and the trend becomes one of warming – but not of rapid warming. The Archdruids of Thermageddon, therefore, can get away with declaring that there is no such thing as a Pause – but only just. Pause denial is now endemic among the acutely embarrassed governing class.

This month Railroad Engineer Pachauri denied the Pause: yet it was he who had proclaimed its existence only a year ago in Australia.

However, it is no longer plausible to suggest, as the preposterous Sir David King did in front of the House of Commons Environment Committee earlier this month, that there will be as much as 4.5 Cº global warming this century unless CO2 emissions are drastically reduced.

More than an eighth of the century has passed with no global warming at all. Therefore, from now to 2100 warming would have to occur at a rate equivalent to 5.2 Cº/century to bring global temperature up by 4.5 Cº in 2100.

How likely is that? Well, for comparison, HadCRUT4 shows that the fastest global warming rate that endured for more than a decade in the 20th century, during the 33 years 1974-2006, was equivalent to just 2 Cº/century.

Even if that record rate were now to commence, and were to continue for the rest of the century, the world would be only 1.75 Cº warmer in 2100 than it was in 2000.

The fastest supra-decadal warming rate ever recorded was during the 40 years 1694-1733, before the industrial revolution began. Then the Central England record, the world’s oldest and a demonstrably respectable proxy for global temperature change, showed warming at a rate equivalent to 4.3 K/century. Nothing like it has been seen since.

Even if that rapid post-Little-Ice-Age naturally-driven rate of naturally-occurring warming were to commence at once and persist till 2100, there would only be 3.75 Cº global warming this century.

Yet the ridiculous Sir David King said he expected 4.5 Cº global warming this century. Even the excitable IPCC, on its most extreme scenario, gives a central estimate of only 3.7 Cº warming this century. Not one of the puddings on the committee challenged him.

Meanwhile, the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow. Here is the IPCC’s predicted global warming trend since January 2005, taken from Fig. 11.25 of the Fifth Assessment Report, compared with the trend on the dataset of datasets since then. At present, the overshoot is equivalent to 2 Cº/century.

clip_image004

It is this graph of the widening gap between the predicted and observed trends that will continue to demonstrate the absence of skill in the models that, until recently, the IPCC had relied upon.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the IPCC’s mid-range estimate of global warming from 1990 onward was 0.35 Cº/decade. The IPCC now predicts less than half that, at 0.17 Cº/decade. At that time, it was advocating a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. It is now transparent that no such reduction is necessary: for the warming rate is already below what it would have been if any such reduction had been achieved or achievable, desired or desirable.

Within a few days, the RSS satellite record for March will be available. I shall report again then. So far, that record shows no global warming for 17 years 6 months.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mario Lento

Excellent: Will need to read more when I am not in work. I count this millennium as having “14” years and 2 months from Feb 2000 through Feb 2014.

Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.

Would the “Good Lord” (almost an exclamation!) please do us one tiny, TINY, favor? Dear Monckton of Brenchley, you are SO SHARP! I’m sure you will immediately, when I say I’ve professionally done SPC (Statistical Process Control) understand my FRUSTRATION at not having the S.D. (as a minimum) along with several other statistical parameters on the data set.
EYEBALLING (bad, bad…BAAAAAAD way to do science) I’d say an S.D. of about 0.5 C. Which means, using 3 S.D. for significance, we’d be DECADES away from another “significant” move right now.
AFTER the GOOD LORD supplies this “proclamation from on high” …I would also appreciate if he’d make an effort to “educate the masses” in the nature of NOISE versus “significant signals” (information theory, SPC, you name it) and that would help BOLSTER OUR CASE that the “Climate Scientists”, do not work in a CLIMATE OF SCIENCE.
THANKS SO MUCH!

is the median the same as the average?

Edohiguma

That railroad engineer is always good for a laugh. After the Tohoku tsunami he was quick to say that it was made worse by the IPCC’s claimed 17 cm sea level rise. The tsunami was measured with 40+ meters in some areas. On average it was a bloody high wall of water with a ridiculous amount of force behind it.
Apparently Pachauri, a man with an engineering degree, believes that being hit by a wall of water measuring up to 39.83 meters is a lot less bad than being hit by a wall of water measuring up to 40+ meters. Yeah. Somehow I doubt that 17 cm made any difference for the hundreds of thousands of people who were displaced by this disaster and the over 18,000 who died in it. And that guy is chairman of the IPCC. Lovely, just lovely.
He could probably work for the German government and their government controlled radio and TV, which still brings highly suggestive reports every year that hint towards that these people died because of Fukushima Daiichi. But Germany’s planned suicide in regards to energy production is a different book.

Mario Lento

psion (@psion) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:35 am
Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.
++++++++++++
Thank you psion –for the answer and explanation!

urederra

There is no Pause.
Like other commenter said here in a previous post, pause implies that the warming will restart in a few years. We cannot be certain that temperatures will go up in a few years, they may well go down, and, if you remove the ad-hoc made HadCRUt4 temperatures from the dataset, the temperatures may have already started to go down. I see a -0.3 degrees per century in the last graph even with the HadCRUt4 temps on it.

cnxtim

And have pity please, I still haven’t found out how CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of (so called) fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere where it joins the other GG’s to commit the cardinal sin of CAGW.
And I can’t accept ‘it’s a miracle’
i am well over the absurdity of any ‘just have faith my son’ religion.
In the words of Joe Friday, ‘ just the facts m’am, just the facts’.

pottereaton

urederra: that’s why I prefer “stasis.” “Pause” presumes future warming as you correctly point out.

For some reason, the Met Office don’t want people to see the CET graph before 1772, in case they see the massive warming upto 1733!
But you can see it here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/cet-and-the-bit-the-met-office-dont-want-you-to-see/

rtj1211

I think the way that the IPCC change their story, as you describe here with Pachauri and the pause, is the smoking gun which shows that the whole thing is a scam and they know it.
Reading the BBC’s website today would be a goldmine for any prosecuting counsel hired to take the BBC to court over breaches to its ‘impartiality’ charter, which is so far from reality in the field of climate change as to make Stalin’s kangaroo courts a model of judicial propriety.
Numpties blogging at the New Statesmen are calling for laws to criminalise ‘deniers’, which does leave the court open for the criminalisation of those who demand deniers be criminalised if they cannot prove the scientific case underpinning their assertions, doesn’t it??
His Royal Highness Steven Connor of the Russian Independent (broadly the only independence it displays is that between its own views and those of the Government of President Putin about most matters, due to the publisher and Putin hardly being the best of friends) waxes lyrical without attending too closely to scientific data.
We await the considered epistle of Geoffrey Lean in the Daily Telegraph, which we can fairly accurately predict to be another paid advertorial for the green climate crew.
The political deal appears clear: the EU debate and the ‘climate change’ debate appear to be joined at the hip. There is no logical reason why they should be, other than the fact that the UK Government has just bunged Siemens of Germany an enormous manufacturing order for an offshore wind array, which will generate piffling amounts of energy at rather an exorbitant price, no doubt as a way to ‘deepen the ties of friendship, mutual obligations and European brother/sisterhood through a fig-leaf of free market open-source tendering’.

Sorry Useles Nations. forming a Marxist World Gov will not ‘arrest climate change’. There is no globaloneyclimate to start with [varies by region]; nor is there a greenhouse [no life on earth if there was]. Grade 9 science used to teach that climate was a convection system of about 1 million interactions [therefore impossible to model the many:many relationships which exist]. Co2 is a trace chemical. Grade 9 chemistry used to teach that trace chemicals were derivatives. Not anymore I suppose. I guess modern Phds are as smart as say grade 8 children in times past.

Marcos

they are able to weasel around this in the report by saying that 90% of the warming has gone into the oceans

the ipcc use these charts to convince people to bet money on them so lets look at them like financial traders would. They would see it as a range with no trend. no bet of any kind on them

MikeUK

The IPCC says there is no pause
–> the IPCC has a political agenda (no reputable scientist would rule out what is clearly a distinct possibility)
–> the IPCC can’t be trusted

Charlie

Psion,
If pedantry is the order of the day, don’t forget about the lost days and years during the calendar re-organisations – meaning that 1/1/2001 was certainly NOT the start of a new millennium….

Bob Rogers

::: Max Hugoson says:
::: professionally done SPC (Statistical Process Control) understand my FRUSTRATION
::: at not having the S.D. (as a minimum) along with several other
I studied that in grad school many years ago. Can you even do a S.D. on a continuous process variable? What would it mean? For a time I made SPC graphs of my gas mileage. Very educational.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that average temperature is a meaningless metric anyway. If your low temperature drops below certain points you’ll get crop failures. If your high temperature goes too high you’ll have crop failures. If your lows are too low and your highs are too high, you’ll still have the same average temperature, as you starve.

It appears that the biggest skeptic is now mother earth. I wonder which jail the alarmists will try to put her in?

world averages are useless for any kind of regional forecasting. They like world averages because it hides the truth. Much easier to say world sea levels rising than explain why some are falling by 6mm which means its not co2

ShrNfr

@psion, even worse, the year 1 bce and 1 ce were the same 365 days for that reason.

Jim G

ObnoxiousJul (@ObnoxiousJul) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
“is the median the same as the average?”
Mean = average, mode = most frequently occuring number, median = the datum half way between min and max.

Jim G

The most pertinent observation, here, is that carbon dioxide continues to increase while temperature does not. Since the warmists claim that CO2 is causal to temperature, their thesis is falsified. End of story.

TomRude

Data, data, is that the only word you have to oppose? /sarc

Steve Oregon

How is it even possible for this to be believed by some?
http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/03/climate-change-and-environment-oreogns-2014-election/
“In fact, not only has every forecast projection made since the term “global warming” was popularized thirty years ago come true, they are coming true much faster than originally projected.”
Is there something going wrong with homo sapiens?

Angela

I do wish someone at the BBC would listen to Lord M – they were blathering on at great length about how we’re all doomed earlier today! It sounds very much like the last squealing of the pigs at the AGW trough – so many lies! Is this the biggest Ponzi scheme in history do we think?

cnxtim

Sooner or later, due to the overwhelming body of real evidence that there is no such thing as CAGW or, if AGW exists at all, it is absolutely infinitesimal. and a champion like Lord Monckton will be allowed to speak.
Then the liars will be denounced.to all and sundry.
Until then, the politicians will continue to dream of their control ambitions for this ‘bogeyman’ that only they can fix with new taxes.
Until the tide turns, the lost media like the BBC will continue to allow overfed academics to spout their nonsense

angela
the bbc have issued an edict saying no platform is to be given to any scientist who challenges the ‘settled science’ because they call that ‘false balance’. They say scientists do not debate with creationists so no need to debate with those they call d eniers.
So the BBC have confused a debate BETWEEN scientists as identical as one between science and religion. So there will be NO balance, No scrutiny and NO debate. Which makes the BBC merely a relay station for social ecology propaganda.
the bbc ban at the bottom of the article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587072/Eureka-How-magic-doughnut-fakes-sun-save-planet-But-Chinese-thanks-billions-spend-eco-power-gravy-train.html

Jim G

Angela says:
March 31, 2014 at 10:40 am
“Is this the biggest Ponzi scheme in history do we think?”
Not in the USA, social security is.

Burch

Sorry, I am not familiar with the word “achievalke”. Sounds a bit Wagnerian… Perhaps a typo meant to be “achievable”?

PMHinSC

ShrNfr says: March 31, 2014 at 10:15 am
“@psion, even worse, the year 1 bce and 1 ce were the same 365 days for that reason.”
Not sure what it all means but the Julian Calendar was created in 45BC, the Gregorian in 1582, and in 1752 and act of Parliament moved the English legal New Years and dropped 11 days, and I believe BCE refers to the Gregorian calendar.

mwhite

The British media has been apoplectic today. For once “global warming” is the watch word/phrase.
The warming is “IRREVERSIBLE”
Digging your own grave comes to mind.

Kelvin Vaughan

psion (@psion) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:35 am
Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.
Yes there was. It was 1 BC..

michael hart

Keeping the high-ground, February is only one month. A large decline signifies little, and is no cause for gloating.
The world getting generally colder from today’s temperatures is not a good prospect for carbon-based life-forms, which currently comprise all recorded life-forms on this planet.
Planet IPCC is purely silicon-based.

mwhite

“Professor Richard Fortey investigates the remains of ancient volcanic lake in Germany where stunningly well-preserved fossils of early mammals, giant insects and even perhaps our oldest known ancestor have been found.
Among the amazing finds are bats as advanced and sophisticated as anything living today, more than 50-million-years-later; dog-sized ‘Dawn’ horses, the ancestor of the modern horse; and giant ants as large as a hummingbird”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03z05zz
A three part series from the BBC. The last episode concerned the Messel pit, a 50 million year old fossil wonderland, then a TROPICAL RAINFOREST!!!
Seems real global warming does’t mean the end of the world.

Tom G(ologist)

psion
“Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
Nonsense. The calendar was not even invented until the 4th century and the entire thing was an estimate at best in long hindsight at a time when records and reckoning were abysmal. The people who ostensibly lived in the non-existent year ZERO, as you put it, had no clue that some day they would be the center of some of the most idiotic nit-picking. It doesn’t matter whether St. Paul did or did not account for a year zero – when you stop counting in the teen numbers, you enter into the next grouping of ten in our decimal system.
According to your interpretation a 20 year old would still be considered a teen-ager. According to my reckoning someone who is 20 is in their twenties and is no longer a teen. Ditto the calendar. When you stop counting 19XY you are no longer in the teen centuries.

Tom G(ologist)

psion
“Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
Nonsense. The calendar was not even invented until the 4th century and the entire thing was an estimate at best in long hindsight at a time when records and reckoning were abysmal. The people who ostensibly lived in the non-existent year ZERO, as you put it, had no clue that some day they would be the center of some of the most idiotic nit-picking. It doesn’t matter whether St. Paul did or did not account for a year zero – when you stop counting in the teen numbers, you enter into the next grouping of ten in our decimal system.
According to your interpretation a 20 year old would still be considered a teen-ager. According to my reckoning someone who is 20 is in their twenties and is no longer a teen. Ditto the calendar. When you stop counting 19XY you are no longer in the teen centuries.

Bruce Cobb

It would be a huge mistake to underestimate the magical properties of manmade CO2. To wit: its’ apparent ability to switch from heating the atmosphere to heating the depths of the oceans (where it can’t be measured, of course), and its’ ability to switch from heating the atmosphere to causing all manner of violent or strange weather events, or frankenstorms, and then to switch back to heating the atmosphere again some time in the future, with renewed vigor and intensity. These magical properties of manmade CO2, and more are truly amazing and worthy of further study. See, there is much we can learn from the Warmists, if we just listen.

heysuess

I’ve said this before. The in-crowd have moved on from global temperatures, totally uncoupling it from ‘climate change’. Man made climate change happens because of man made emissions and trying to talk them out of this is akin to trying to talk a devout person out of believing in The Almighty. You are wasting your breath. Of course, this latest leap of faith allows them to completely disregard real science, all the while attempting to co-opt and trademark the term Science just as they have Climate Change. That’s getting close to evil in my books.

JimS

Given that the atmosphere has increased in CO2 over the last 16 years, and yet temperatures have remained relatively the same, we should find ways to continue putting even more CO2 into the atmosphere – hey! This might even bring global temperatures down.

If global warming is this pausible, aren’t the predictions implausible?

Evan Jones

is the median the same as the average?
No. It means half the results are higher and half are lower. Nothing more.
“Mean” is the average.

“the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559
how many climate experts are there with free time from their day jobs to do all that reviewing?
12 000 scientific studies on climate physics? And they still can’t nail the sucker down? Or are most of them nothing to do with climate but more to do with sustainability and the social ecology agenda?
how many experts would u need to review 12,000 papers and how much time? if peer review is so important why was there late night negotiations with non scientists for the final draft?

Tom Monroe

How can the “fastest 33 years”:
… HadCRUT4 shows that the fastest global warming rate that endured for more than a decade in the 20th century, during the 33 years 1974-2006, was equivalent to just 2 Cº/century.
Include 10 years or so of “no warming”.
Have been between 1974 and 2006?
If warming stopped sometime around 1998, then wouldn’t the fastest rate be found between 1974 and 1998. Especially considering that according to the graph, 2006 wasn’t particularly warm…
Did he mean 2007? because that looks to me like the year that temps really turned around…

PeterB in Indianapolis

@Tom G(ologist).
What you say is true, and yet, at the actual time, there was indeed nothing that COULD have been known as “year zero”. You see, back then, they had no concept of zero itself.
Hence, according to the Christian Scriptures, Christ rose from the dead on THE THIRD DAY even though he supposedly died on a Friday afternoon, and rose from the dead on Sunday morning, a mere 39 hours or so later (not anywhere near 72 hours certainly).
You see, there being no concept of zero, Friday was day ONE, which made Saturday day two, and Sunday day three (or the third day).
So regardless of the calendar system (or even regardless of whether on not one was even in use at the time), the first year of the “Christian Era” or what we used to call A.D. in calendar years, would have indeed been year 1, and not year zero.

PeterB in Indianapolis

@Tom G(ologist) (again)
Of course we don’t call 20 year old people teenagers, mainly because we don’t say that they are 1 year old on the day they are born…. However, if we had no concept of zero as they did not 2000 years ago, we might!

Charlie @ 10:06 am:
It’s hardly pedantry if one’s essentially answering a question. Mario was legitimately confused about Lord Monckton’s counting and challenged it. I simply pointed out why His Lordship (gosh I love writing that!) counted the way he did.
Kelvin Vaughan @ 11:12 am:
I believe astronomers use that convention to tidy up their calculations. However the Anno Domini callendar, created by Dionysius Exiguus before westerners had a grasp of the concept of a numerical zero, goes from 1 BC to 1 AD. Thus, the first century ran for 100 years from 1 to 100, with 101AD marking the start of the second century. The same with each millennium.
Tom G(ologist) @ 11:22:
Sorry, Tom, not nonsense: history. As I point out to Kelvin, the lack of a numerical zero at the time of the creation of the calendar meant that the first century was recorded as having started with the year 1, not the year 0. If, by your understanding, we counted the first century as lasting from 1 to 99, that would only leave 99 years in the first century. Using your analogy, a child is born at the age of zero. A year later, they are one, and so on. But they are, even only an hour after birth, considered to be living in their first year, and, upon reaching the age of 1, are now considered to be living in their second year. So … contrary to your expectations about my beliefs, a 20 year old would be living in their 21st year.
Anyway, to simplify it, just remember, a millinnium is 1000 years long, not 999. Since our calendar does not have a zero, but positive numbers start at 1, 1 plus 1000 equals 1001. And thus, the year 2000 was the very end of the 20th century. The 21st century and the current millennium started on January 1st, 2001.
If nothing else, consider that Lord Monckton also seems to be counting this way … do you really want to get into a verbal sparring match with *him*?!

Box of Rocks

And yet the folks over at the Puff Host deny that the world has not warmed for 17+ years….

Bryan A

cnxtim says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:51 am
And have pity please, I still haven’t found out how CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of (so called) fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere where it joins the other GG’s to commit the cardinal sin of CAGW.
And I can’t accept ‘it’s a miracle’
i am well over the absurdity of any ‘just have faith my son’ religion.
In the words of Joe Friday, ‘ just the facts m’am, just the facts’.
Condiser that with over 93,000 daily flights cruising at altitudes of between 5-7 miles and exhausting between 150 & 350kg of co2 per hour, there is a fair ammount of this trace gas Carbon Dioxide being produced at relatively high altitudes. That produced at ground level doesn’t need to become mixed or convected to higher altitudes.

Village Idiot

Marcos: March 31, 2014 at 10:02 am
“they are able to weasel around this in the report by saying that 90% of the warming has gone into the oceans”
90% is close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhereIsTheHeatOfGlobalWarming.svg
Of course, all that heat would make the sea level rise:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaLevel
But don’t mention this to the irascible Sir Christopher, or he might kick off.

@Village Idiot – William Connolley.

Bryan A

Tom G.
Try this. Count to Ten using your fingers. What number did you start at?
Now try it again, this time when you pop up your first finger start with ZERO.
People don’t count ZERO.
The first year was 1.
The first century ends with 100
The first millennium ends with 1000
the second year was 2
The second century ends with 200
the second millennium ends with 2000

Alec aka Daffy Duck

I like how usatoday stuck them:
There is no new science in this report, which assesses recent science since the previous IPCC report in 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03/30/climate-change-report-ipcc/7085937/
Hmm, no new science since 2007??