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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“””””…..ObnoxiousJul (@ObnoxiousJul) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
is the median the same as the average?…..”””””
No, The median is the center number, in an ordered list of the numbers. The average is the sum of all the numbers, divided by the number of numbers in the dataset.
Statistics is a branch of mathematics; it has nothing to do with science. You can do statistics on ANY set of numbers, even sets of numbers, in which no two numbers, have any connection with each other. It is done mostly for amusement. It tells you nothing about anything, except about that set of numbers, which you already know the values of.
You can use statistics, to guess how surprised people will be, at the results of your statistics.
“””””…..Village Idiot says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:58 pm
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……””””””
So here’s question for you:
Dr. Kevin Trenberth in his (in)famous “Earth Energy Budget” cartoon, includes several different kinds of energies.
He has electro-magnetic radiation energy items, “heat” energy items, in the form of thermal conduction from surface to atmosphere, thermal convection, of rising warmed air, phase change thermal energy in the form of latent heat of evaporation.
The bottom edge of the chart is presumably the non gaseous earth; and the top edge is the atmosphere-outer space interface, with the atmosphere occupying the majority of the drawing.
Now Trenberth famously wailed about the travesty of the vast quantity of “missing heat” that they could not account for.
Now the atmosphere-outer space interface is unique, in that only EM radiative energy crosses that boundary; in either direction.
Excepting trivial freak events, NO “heat” energy either enters, or leaves the earth; only EM radiation can.
So all of Trenberth’s thermal energy items, are entirely internal to the system, so they should not even be present on an energy budget.
Despite this, and Trenberth’s travesty, he doesn’t even mention the astronomical amounts of thermal (heat) energy that is circulating in the earth’s oceans, transporting vast amounts of energy from the tropics, to the polar regions.
Why mention the miniscule atmospheric totally internal, energy circulations, and totally ignore the several orders of magnitude larger energy circulating (internally) in the oceans ??
His travesty, is right in front of his face. But why include internal energy, in a budget of earth’s energies, when there can be no arrival, or exit of heat energy across the atmosphere-space boundary. ??
Yes, “irreversible” is a word that keeps cropping up. If it is so, then we can stop worrying because there’s no longer anything we can do about it. And we don’t need the climate scientists any more either, since the science is finally settled.
But something tells me the scientists won’t stop working, since governments need their independent and highly scientific scares to keep us willing to pay the green taxes….
As previously conjectured, in a thesis written by moi, Lord Monckton does NOT cherry pick his data sets; as evidenced by his launching of a new month, with that holiest of holy data sets; in HADCRUd-4; rather than waiting for his supposed “pet” set, the RSS dataset.
So HC-4 duly demonstrates the Monckton “level headed” game of flatness; exactly as predicted; excuse me; that’s projected, in my award winning thesis.
Good show Christopher; let them twist in the wind now !
Bryan A says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:58 pm
…
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
*
Zero might not be counted by the word zero, but it is taken into account.
The first year ENDS on 1, it begins on 0.
A child is 1 year old at the END of their first year, not the beginning of it, anything earlier is a partial year (from 1 month until the 12th month is finished they are 0 years old). By the beginning of their “year 1” they have already lived a year and were alive during “year 0”. They remain 1, then, until the second year is done, when they become 2.
The first century is ended at the moment the clock ticks over and 99 becomes 100. The new count begins immediately. Same for millennium.
In the same manner a new day starts immediately after midnight. We don’t give 2400 hours another 60 minutes before we start the count for the new day. One day ends at the beginning of 2400 and a new one starts there.
Unfortunately this message “there is no AGW” is not getting to MSM at all. ALL MSM today reported on the disastrous consequences on unhinged AGW.
“Plateau” is also a neutral word–and is catching on.
Here’s what’s needed. (Excuse me for repeating myself.) Josh could help things along if he were to translate my idea into an image.
Here is a subtly subversive logo-idea of mine that should be used at Heartland’s upcoming Conference on Climate Change:
Image—A hockey stick with its shaft slanting upwards & to the right and with its blade flat and pointing to the right. It’s transparently overlaid on a graph of the running mean of GASTA (Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly), averaged from five sources.
Caption—”Who’s in Denial Now?”
In order for it to be included in photos used in the MSM, it should be positioned in one of these locations:
In a banner over the lectern;
In a background placard behind or alongside the lectern. (Similar to the image of the White House used at presidential press conferences.)
In a foreground placard attached to the lectern.
The audience of CAGW religious zealots will not be swayed by any amount of logic or humour., they will simply go into a trance and start their mantras.
It is the softer edges of teetering AGW believers that need to come over to reason in increasing numbers and then only by solid reason will they make the switch,
First a trickle, then a flood.
The nutters will always be there..
@A.D. Everard says:
March 31, 2014 at 1:53 pm
You are correct in your statement that
“A child is 1 year old at the END of their first year, not the beginning of it”
So the first year isn’t counted as complete until the END of the year and so the First Millennium isn’t counted as completed until the END of the 1000th year. And the second Mellinnium isn’t counted until the end of the 2000th year.
But the forst year IS year 1 because there is no Year Zero just like you don’t count from 1 to 10 starting with Zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29
Quote= WIKI “Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars.”
Year ZERO is only referenced as the last year before 1AD and refers to 1BC in most prior calendars
1AD (Anno Domini) The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of the Lord.
It refers to the First year of Dominance of the Lord or the first year of the life of Jesus
And why is doom associated with high temperatures? That is the other leg of the global warming fantasy I would suggest that periods drought and of human misery, death, famine are associated with temperaturesa lower than todays and periods of larger precitipation, greater vegetation, bounty, population increase have been associated with temperatures higher than todays. We should strive (if in a fantasy world we had control of it) to increase world temperatures, not to decrease them, and if the correlation between CO2 and temperatures was stronger than they lead us to believe, to correspondingly increase the amount of CO2 in teh atmosphere, not to decrease it. We should strive to do that just merely due to the increase in agricultural yields.
George E. Smith is very kind to notice that, as often before, I have used all five principal global temperature datasets, giving equal weighting to each. Now, if I were one M. Mann, I’d give 390 times as much weighting to RSS as to any of the others, and then I’d sue anyone who said I’d bent the results.
Roger Knights asks if a hockey stick can be superimposed on the temperature data since 1979. I’ll see what my large and able staff can do in that direction and will put it up as a postcard here if it looks good.
Not sure what point the aptly pseudonymous Village Idiot is making: but, on past form, it will live up to its name.
I’ll go you one better than that.
I told him that I was sorry he lost the vote here at WUWT for “Climate Duplicitist of the Year”, but that I voted for him and supported him. 🙂
He says “we are done”. And I thought I had made another friend!
– Mark
Anyone notice the IPCC released their latest scarefest the day before April Fool’s Day? Surely they’re taking the mickey with a large dose of the middle finger thrown in. Playing everyone for fools and not even having the decency of trying to hide it anymore – they need to be disbanded asap.
ObnoxiousJul (@ur momisuglyObnoxiousJul) asks @ur momisugly March 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
is the median the same as the average?
No. The median is half way between the maximum and minimum value in a statistical sample. The mean is the average of all samples. However, in a perfect Gaussian distribution, they are the same. However, perfection does not exist in reality. The most commonly noticeable example of this is mean versus average annual income stats.
Andrejs Vanags @ur momisugly March 31, 2014 at 2:35 pm
And why is doom associated with high temperatures?
CO2 is a plant’s best friend.
A warm planet is a happy planet.
There is a consensus about no consensus concerning equilibrium climate sensitivity.
So basically we are either going to see a net benefit from global warming or we are going to fry. What use is the IPCC if this is all they can say? It’s like saying the boat I am in will float across the river OR sink. LOL. We must not act now!
Be fun to see the IPCC try to put their stunt over Putin, har bloody har.
Hadcrut3 joins the 200 month club having a slope of 0 from June 1997 to February 2014. (Actually 201 months.)
Max Hugoson says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:35 am
“Would the “Good Lord” (almost an exclamation!) please do us one tiny, TINY, favor?”
Surprised? … the “good lord” has no scientific credentials lol
You mean umm … “credentials” like Al Gore has?
The median is half way between the maximum and minimum value in a statistical sample.
No less than two people claimed this. Don’t make me come up there.
@11:12
Planet IPCC is purely silicon based.
Would that be ‘Silly Con’ perchance?
Sorry Michael Hart 31st March 2014 @11:12am:
To give proper credit…
“Planet IPCC is purely silicon-based”
I didn’t quote properly as I’m on my ‘phone and it’s harder to look back .
The IPCC is purely”Silly-Con” based.
I can’t cope with reading all that just now. I still feel nauseous after watching Sycophantic Sarah on the ABC 7:30 report interviewing Chris Field last night. Pass the sick bag.
Lord Monckton
I don’t think Central England is a good proxy for global temperature. 4.3 C/century warming is easier to attain in a small area like Central England. Urban heat island effect can accelerate warming in cities and towns. Oceans have much greater heat capacity. You need more energy to increase their temperature by 1 C.
The 2 C/century warming in 1974-2006 is taken from the minimum temperature during a cool period and the maximum temperature during a warm period. It cannot be extended for 100-year period. Global temperature cycles every 20-30 years. Indicates that it is driven by natural cycles.
You have to explain why the temperature trend is flat since 1998 when humans added 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere in 2000-2010. This is equal to the carbon added in 1970-2000. So the 1978-1998 warming is not caused by CO2?