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.
psion (@ur momisuglypsion) says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Charlie @ur momisugly 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 find there to be confusion here.
psion corrected me, as he explained. In that context, he is correct.
However, it’s rather less precise to use that metric to attribute time. That’s why I appreciated the clarification to my statement.
But – I have to admit, it was nice to be validated by some other smart folk.
Can someone pls explain to a layman like me how the CAGW activists can keep saying that the world continues to warm and we have experienced “hottest years on record recently and there’s no pause ” etc etc. Maybe it’s to do with them ignoring the error allowances / bars or whatever they are called.So I’m guessing that the temps have risen, albeit slightly, and that’s how they get away with it.. Is that so?
The CBC, on cue, made this the top story today. Gag me with a spoon.
So Bryan A we don’t need to worry about any CO2 generated at ground level, it is only about jet engines eh?
That will allow us to generate as much electricity as we like on the ground with coal, oil and gas and get the Tesla car company of California to build the engines for aircraft – whew time to breath easy!
and if that doesn’t work out, we can switch to airships. Whatever as long as we can keep using our abundant natural resources or any other form of energy production that has an acceptable ROI.
The cinematically pseudonymous “Dr Strangelove” says he does not think central England is a good proxy for global temperature change, and worries about the urban heat-island effect. However, “central England” covers most of England, which was largely rural during the early 18th century, when for 40 years the temperature rose at a rate equivalent to 4.33 Cº/century. The urban heat island effect could not have made any discernible difference.
I calibrated the Central England temperature series against the mean of the three global terrestrial temperature series during the two full 60-year cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that are covered by the global record – the 120 years 1894-2013. Over that period, the two trends diverged by only 0.01 Cº.
So I don’t “think” central England is a good proxy for global temperature. I have demonstrated that it is. The reason for the rapid, naturally-occurring warming of 1964-1733 – a rate of warming not seen in the industrial era – is the recovery of solar activity after the Maunder Minimum, during which the Thames in London and the Hudson in New York used to freeze over every winter. They do not do that now.
Next, “Dr Strangelove” says oceans have a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. So they do: but that does not prevent the atmosphere from warming and cooling, though it certainly has a damping effect that renders the IPCC’s exaggerated estimates of feedback amplification and consequently of climate sensitivity implausible in the extreme. For the past 420,000 years, absolute mean global surface temperature has varied by little more than 1% either side of the long-run average.
“Dr Strangelove” then says the 2 Cº/century warming over the 33 years 1974-2006 “cannot be extended for 100-year period”.
No, but it can be extrapolated. I had merely pointed out that even if 2 Cº/century, the highest rate of warming that endured for more than a decade since the industrial revolution, were to commence now and continue for 100 years, the world would be only 1.75 Cº warmer in 2100 than it was in 2000.
However, “Dr Strangelove” ends with three good points:
“Global temperature cycles every 20-30 years. Indicates that it is driven by natural cycles.” Actually, it cycles every 60 years, following the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, showing about 30 years’ warming followed by 30 years’ cooling. We are currently about halfway through the negative phase of the PDO, yet no cooling is evident, suggesting the possibility that manmade warming may be having a sufficient warming effect to negate the expected small cooling.
The usual suspects “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”. Yes, they do indeed have some explaining to do: and they have advanced a dozen mutually contradictory explanations, which, if they were all true, would have flung us into a new Ice Age, CO2 or no CO2.
“So the 1978-1998 warming is not caused by CO2?” Well, theory would lead us to suspect that CO2 caused some of the warming, which actually began in 1976 when there was an unusually abrupt transition from the negative to the positive phase of the PDO, which transiently contributed around 1.1 Watts per square meter of warming to 2001. On top of that, during 18 years from 1983-2001 some 2.9 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing was caused by a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover. Contrast that with the fact that, according to the IPCC, in the entire industrial era since 1960 Man’s total radiative forcing – the driver of anthropogenic warming – was just 2.3 Watts per square meter, of which only 0.8 Watt per square meter occurred from 1983-2001. So natural variability accounted for about 4 Watts per square meter of the 4.8 Watts per square meter combined forcing from 1983-2001, and Man accounted for only one-sixth of that. Yet the IPCC tries to tell us it is 95-99% certain that most of the warming since 1750 was manmade. O, pur-leaze!
Alleluia! I hope you use it as a placard on your lectern at the Heartland conference, too. Ideally, I hope Heartland adopts it as its own logo on this topic, and then uses it in a billboard campaign.
One detail I didn’t mention is the location of the phrase, “Who’s in Denial Now?” I envisage it in the lower right corner, split into two lines, both right aligned, with only “Now?” on the second line.
Perhaps “Now?” might be boldfaced and/or italicized and/or in all-caps to hammer home the point that Time has turned the tables (or flipped the hockey-stick) on the alarmists, who used the upward-slanting blade of up to a dozen or so years ago as proof that anyone who didn’t agree that the temperature was heading skyward was “in denial.” Now the warm has turned.
Maybe the warming isn’t hiding in the oceans but going out into space. Oops, wait a minute,……
We are right on schedule for another 30 years until temperatures ever break the peak of 1998 just as they took four decades to break the former peak around 1945, so certainly oscillations of 30/60 years take an extra decade to not only just cycle back but to start breaking new records due to the underlying linear trend to reassert itself even with a bit of greenhouse effect added to it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1895/to:1954
Quote ” Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
The real reason Monckton starts at 2001 is that if you include 2000, the slope is positive.
Lord Monckton
Prior to 1723 CET were taken from outside measurements. From 1723-1760s the temperatures were taken indoors. This can produce UHI effect as there are more radiating surfaces inside a room.
If your calibration is not due to chance, we need a theory why a small land area in the northern hemisphere represents the heat exchanges in the southern hemisphere and the five great oceans. I don’t doubt your data. But it seems too good to be true that we don’t need thousands of stations around the world to determine global temperature.
The warming and cooling of the atmosphere is not uniform across the globe. If it were, we only need one weather station located anywhere in the world.
I believe you but can you kindly provide peer-reviewed scientific papers that measure the radiative forcing of PDO and cloud cover from 1980-present and debunk AGW.
Looks like another severe dose of “global warming” is heading our way in the UK. Headlines in this mornings Daily Express… http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276202
Sorry, please ignore last, try this
Paul Homewood says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:53 am
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!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/cet-and-the-bit-the-met-office-dont-want-you-to-see/
Interesting link which led me to this link….
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
which attempts to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.
According to the Met office page for CET data, it is already ‘adjusted’ to compensate for Urban Heat Island effect!
IPCC, IPCC… That is UN WORLD CLIMATE COUNCIL to you Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
Don’t bother us with such trivial real world statistics.
We’re living in the age of virtual reality, don’t you know.
“Looks like another severe dose of “global warming” is heading our way in the UK. Headlines in this mornings Daily Express… http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276202” er, the article is dated 2011!!
The point about the ‘first millenium’ is that it was NOT exactly a thousand years. So the second one didn’t ‘start’ on 1/1/2000 or 1/1/2001. No-one knows for sure when a thousand years had passed after JC’s birth.
FRUSTRATION at not having the S.D.
==============
the problem is that the IPCC and climate science ignores elementary statistics::
Unbiased sample standard deviation
For unbiased estimation of standard deviation, there is no formula that works across all distributions, unlike for mean and variance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
The 17-year pause, translated into Michael E. Mann’s metaphor, changes the angle between the shaft of the hockey stick and the blade: it rises less sharply. In hockey terminology, the angle between the shaft and the blade is known as the “lie”.
So you could say, without fear of a defamation suit, that Mann got his lie wrong. Hahahaha.
thingadonta says: “Maybe the warming isn’t hiding in the oceans but going out into space. Oops, wait a minute,……”
Well, sure, all the heat is going into space for now, but just you wait! Space has a very high thermal capacity, but once the Earth’s excess heat has raised the cosmic background radiation from three degrees Kelvin up to sixteen degrees Celsius, Global Warming will resume with a vengeance! We need to tax carbon NOW! 🙂
@ur momisugly Grant A. Brown “In hockey terminology, the angle between the shaft and the blade is known as the “lie”. ”
LOL! That is almost too appropriate to believe. I think that the Muse of Linguistics must have a wicked sense of humor!
To dispel some inaccuracies that have sprung up in this thread, let us be clear what the median is. In an ordered set of n quantities, it is the central member of the set where n is odd, and the mean of the two central members where n is even.
The eerily pseudonymous “Dr Strangelove” asks an interesting question: why does the Central England Temperature Record stand as a reasonable proxy for global temperature change?
The answer is that over a sufficiently long period, at least on the half-century scale, regional changes at mid-latitudes will tend to be near-identical, for in the long run regional change does not indefinitely or significantly depart from global change at those latitudes.
cnxtim says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:21 pm
So Bryan A we don’t need to worry about any CO2 generated at ground level, it is only about jet engines eh?
(snip)
Your original question was
How Ground produced CO2 makes it into the upper atmosphere?
“Quote” 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’.”
My point was, Ground produced CO2 doesn’t need to be “Magically” relocated to the upper atmosphere as it is also poduced at atitude VIA the Air Travel Industry. Where it can be convectively lifted to higher altitudes and well mixed VIA the “jet Stream”
ferdberple says:April 1, 2014 at 5:55 am
Boy, Wiki’s description of SD doesn’t look anything like what I remember from SQCS implementation in the 70s and early 80s. I thought it was the sum of the difference of each member of n population from the average, the total divided by (n-1). I do know what we did worked very well at identifying and removing process variation.
In answer to those who wonder how the CO2 we emit gets into the upper atmosphere, it is what is known as a “well-mixed” greenhouse gas. Its concentration is near-uniform throughout all altitudes and latitudes, varying only by a few percentage points from place to place. There are many mixing processes in the atmosphere, not the least of which are the afternoon convection via thunderstorms in the tropics and the baroclinic eddies in the extratropics.
Water vapor, by contrast, is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas, either latitudinally or altitudinally.
Yawn.
For nearly ALL of the time during the last several decades of global warming one could claim to have been in a period of more or less stable or declining temperatures, see:
http://tinyurl.com/oq4gbbx
Christopher
The flat temperature curve that shows no global warming for some 17 years plus will get no upward swing due to what may happen in North America at least based on the pattern of the temperatures of the last 16 years here and posssibly the next 25 years as well.
THE TREND OF US TEMPERATURES
The following are monthly temperature trends for Contiguous US or 48 states as calculated by the NCDC/NOAA Climate at a Glance web page for the last 16 years [1998-2014]. The figure reflect the linear trend in Fahrenheit degrees per decade per NCDC/NOAA web page data to March 20,2014 using base period of 1998-2013
WINTER (-1.78 F/DECADE) – DECLINING
DEC -1.21 F/decade (declining)
JAN -1.52 F (declining)
FEB -2.77 F (declining)
SPRING (+0.21 F/DECADE)- RISING
MAR +1.4 F (rising)
APR -0, 21 F (declining)
MAY -0.56 F (declining)
SUMMER (+0.48 F/ DECADE-RISING
JUN +1.19 F (rising)
JUL +0.25 F (rising)
AUG -0.01 F (declining)
FALL( -0.44 F/DECADE-DECLINING
SEPT +0.06 F (flat)
OCT -0.61 F (declining)
NOV -0.76 F (declining)
ANNUAL(-0.38 F/DECADE-DECLINING
Summary
8 months are declining, 1 month is flat, and 3 months are rising
WINTER AND FALL have DECLINING TEMPERATURES
SPRING AND SUMMER have RISING TEMPERATURES [Spring is almost declining with 2months out of three declining]
These declines are similar to past temperature declines in United States during 1895-1920 and again 1954 -1979. A similar cool period seems to have started again . Hence it looks like cooler weather for the next 25 years at least due to cooling ocean SST cycles