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.
Not seeing the forrest for the trees.
I would note the following analogy: An interesting concepts of theories is one suggested by the physicist, N. David Mermin, in which theories are viewed as tapestries, woven from an large number of experimental and analytical threads. With well established theories you can always unpick some of the threads, but that does not destroy the integrity of the overall tapestry. This tapestry metaphor seems to be ideally suited for illustrating the coherence of “theories” like evolution and and increasingly also for anthropogenic global warming.
To expand a little on this, following Darwin’s amazing observations and postulates on evolution, the various “threads” of ongoing research and analysis in various branches of science, all started to intertwine to validate the underlying concept, and have continued to do so to weave a solid tapestry. Various faulty threads along the way broke, or needed to be unpicked, but overall the integrity of the tapestry remained and it has becomes more and more solid as more threads are woven into it.
I find similarities to that in considering global climate change. The basic science is quite well understood and the postulate that we are pouring enough CO2 into the atmosphere to increase global warming has become established by ongoing mainstream scientific research and analysis in various branches of science: There are enough solid strings to form a coherent tapestry to back up the concept. Some of the threads break or are faulty and need to be unpicked, but that does not destroy the integrity of the tapestry. Some of the fringe science here provides a useful service in helping to identify the poorer quality threads that need to be unpicked to eventually produce a stronger product.
A simple analogy to illustrate the mathematical principle behind my previous post (April 2, 2014 at 6:59 pm)
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the standard of evidence in all empirical sciences. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
A simple analogy to illustrate the mathematical principle behind my previous post (April 2, 2014 at 6:59 pm)
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Sorry the paragraphs are getting cut. First two paragraphs above are ok. Below are the two last paragraphs.
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
something wrong. paragraphs getting cut. try again
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence.
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N < 50 we get a cooling trend. We actually got N = 55 a warming trend. We conclude P = 0.55 therefore the coin is loaded = anthropogenic influence. Is it correct? Wrong! In fact a fair coin can produce the same result N = 55. Moreover, the probability of getting N = 50 is P = 0.08 hence the probability of N being greater than or less than 50 is P = 0.92. So we should expect a warming or a cooling trend even with a fair coin.
With the given data, a fair coin and a loaded coin are indistinguishable. We need a stronger signal to establish statistical significance. At two-sigma deviation, we can conclude the coin is loaded P > 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Finally the last two paragraphs came in right (see above). There are only 3 main paragraphs in all these posts
@richard
Pure nonsense. Most people around here still use 1998 as the end of the warming.
You are ridicuous. In the year 2014 there was no entries on WUWT claiming that warming stopped in 1997 or 1998. Meanwhile there was more than 10 entries claiming this was 2001 or 2002.
Already in the year 2013 there was much more entries with stop in 2001 or 2002 than entries with stop in 1997 or 1998
At least google says so. Check yourself if you want.
You are simply in denial that the warming has stopped and cooling has begun.
As such claims here are based on pathological science’s methods, so I see no reason even to discuss about them. When someone presents here graphs similar to mine with “blue channel” and “red channel” splitting in 2005 (or 2001, or 2002) i could discuss about this. But I’m sure no one will ever to that here, so I’m safe.
It’s pretty obvious when you ignore the very best data we have
I’m ingoring pathological methods of “pause proving”.
But let’s see what about (most popular in your opinion) claim warming stopped in 1998 base on satelite data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c72990aa_rss.png
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c74c1170_uah.png
Splice says:
April 4, 2014 at 1:19 am
In the year 2014 there was no entries on WUWT claiming that warming stopped in 1997 or 1998.
How about 1996 for RSS? There are at least four. Lord Monckton had at least two and I had two.
As well, if some one stopped growing on their 20th birthday, you can prove it by plotting height versus year from age 20. You do NOT prove it by plotting height versus year from ages 1 to 100 and see a rising slope and conclude the person was still growing between the ages of 90 and 100.
@Werner Brozek
How about 1996 for RSS?
I really see no reason to check exact numbers of each year of stop. Currenty most entries on WUWT claims warming stopped in 2001 or 2002 as four years ago most of them claimed warming stopped in 1997 or 1998. The date of stop will be moving forward as time passes in the future too, because EVERYONE HERE USES PATHOLOGICAL METHODS TO DETERMINE THIS DATE.
As well, if some one stopped growing on their 20th birthday, you can prove it by plotting height versus year from age 20
Yes, you could prove that by plotting graphs of this type
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c633f4cb_hadcrut4.png
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
with splitting at age 20.
…but no one here ever did that for ANY AGE. Everyone here is using different methods of proving, but each of those methods is pathological one – that is the reason why point of stop differs from 1994 to 2005 and moves forward as time passes.
Splice,
Apparently you are the type to stick your fingers in your ears and yell,
“LA-LA-LA-LA!! I CAN’T HEE-E-E-AR YOU-U-U!!”
There is nothing “pathological” about the data. Global warming stopped more than 17 years ago.
Deal with it.
@dbstealey
Global warming stopped more than 17 years ago.
… and this 1997/1998 warming stop is clearly visible:
in the HadCRU data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
in NASA GISS data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53208d96c2165_giss.png
in RSS data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c72990aa_rss.png
and in UAH data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c74c1170_uah.png
Almost everyone here see clearly that 1998 and later data follow blue channels on the above graphs not red ones. I realize that you see blue channels are followed, and that’s why I’m using word “pathological” very often here.