The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months

clip_image002By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 [months] since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to May 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 9 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend. But the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº century–1. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter of a century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to juar 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2. Medium-term global temperature projections from IPCC (1990), January 1990 to April 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) as the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change since 2005 at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue).

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no statistically-significant global warming for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

New attempts to explain away the severe and growing discrepancy between prediction and reality emerge almost every day. Far too few of the scientists behind the climate scare have yet been willing to admit the obvious explanation – that the models have been programmed to predict far more warming than is now likely.

The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.

Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from September 1996 to May 2014. That is more than half the entire 425-month satellite record.

Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.

Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Ø In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 4.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.

Ø The IPCC’s prediction of 4.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 213 months September 1996 to May 2014 – more than half the 425-months satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Shawn from High River

Wait until El Niño hits this year. If there is any rise in temp, I expect the warmists screams will reach a fever pitch.

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. Good post.
It is not getting warmer that would be a problem, it is getting cooler that would be a problem.

Stephen Richards

UK Met Off ? Response please !

James Strom
mpainter

nor is there any reason to expect a resumption of waming during this decade. Time (in fact way past time) to re-examine the fundamental theory behind the hype and alarmism. But the alarmists are incapable of questioning their dogma.

Doug Proctor

Yet it has no effect on the President of the US or other regulators.
The CAGW mania is behaving just like the witchcraft mania. I used to think the comparison was weak. I don’t think so anymore. The words “witch” and “CO2” are spelled differently, but the behavior of the believers and the Governors one each issue are the same.
We know more things but we aren’t any smarter.

TRG

On the other hand, a mere 4 years ago we appear to have been on the predicted trend. This could all switch back to the wrong way rather quickly.

Nik

A while back it was all about surface temperatures. Now the heat’s in the oceans and we shouldn’t pay too much attention to surface temperatures but the global situation. Although an El Nino is really a global cooling event in that heat in the oceans transfers to the atmosphere and then into space I expect them to kick up a right fuss about it when it happens.
I sincerely hope you (Christopher Monckton of Brenchley… no Lord???) remind them about these two facts when they start to cry alarm yet again.

Unfortunately, the GISS and NOAA got their orders to end the pause and make 2014 the warmest year ever and they are adjusting their numbers accordingly.
According to the RSS April 2014 was only the 10th warmest April since 1979. Yet somehow according to the GISS/NOAA April 2014 was the Warmest of all time.
The press will trumpet the GISS/NOAA end of the pause while ignoring the decline/pause seen in the RSS/UAH

Tim Obrien

As Uhura said in one of the Star Trek movies, “This isn’t reality, this is fantasy!” The activists have their agenda and no facts are going to get in their way to all that green money and political power.

Addolff

Please forgive my ignorance here, but last months graph was from August 1996 to April 2014, and was headlined as 213 months “No global warming for 17 years, 9 months”.
Why is this graph from September 1996?
Can someone please tell me what I’m missing?

david dohbro

A question for those who may know: how can GSTAs be so accurate as to having 2 or 3 decimals, e.g. RSS may 2012 GSTA is 0.286? Namely, even a $300+ platinum ultra accurate thermometer has an error of +/- 0.05C.
(http://www.novatech-usa.com/6413?gclid=CjkKEQjwh7ucBRD9yY_fyZe398gBEiQAAoy4JA71Ass74CiGhNd8iWQ7Xj6ClHGkiVXdl6xX9UD7-0vw_wcB)
Thanks!

steve

The RSS data site I found (remss.com) shows that while troposphere measurements have not been changing much the stratosphere measurements, channels 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 25 that are part of RSS have fairly significant dropping trends, all are between -0.2 and -0.8 C per decade. Granted they started measuring in 1998 and that year was a very warm year in the lower atmosphere, so that drop may be misleading. But that general dropping rate over 17 years is around -0.5 K per decade, almost -1 F per decade, faster than the rises predicted for the lower atmosphere that have gotten many people alarmed. Is anyone alarmed about the drop rate going on in the stratosphere temperature? And is there any explanation for the dropping?

Steve

Is the stratosphere cooling caused by heat being trapped lower in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases? At least in theory?

Village Idiot

More of Mr. Monkton’s monthly monkeyshine mallard. His Prunus avium stall set up on the Village Green, he performs the same irksomely tedious statistics trick as previous months.
Take one data set of choice, select the “Cerasis Periodum” (yes, he’s a scientifically scientific non-scientist) hit ‘plot graph’ and the check from Big A is in the post.
The Munkton Mallard is not so impressive, Sir Christopher. Any Idiot can take the same dodgy, diverging prop, select another cerasis periodum, and show over 15 years of warming and counting – and no need for accompanying tongue gymnastics in an attempt to slither around a possible coming El Nino spoiler.

david dohbro

RSS linear trends
last 5 yrs: -0.038C/yr (stat sign)
last 10yrs: -0.001C/yr (not stat sign)
last 15yrs: 0.002C/yr (no stat sign)
since 1998 el nino peak:-0.002C/yr (not stat sign)
last 20yrs: 0.004C/yr (not stat sign)
entire dataset: 0.012C/yr (stat sign)

JIm Cripwell

Lord Monckton writes “The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers,”
I don’t think so. Satellites do not orbit the earth at 600 mb, sampling temperature data. As I understand the physics, the temperature is calculated from the emission of one of the O2 lines, and is a “brightness” temperature.

El Nino Nanny

Looks more like a “Modoki” el nino if you ask me.
see WUWT nino page here, where nino4 is most active
like in past “Modoki” events, still as Monckton says, we
don’t really know what causes them, and the trend may
suddenly, we don’t know why, but it has NOTHING to do
with man-made CO2 emissions, that much is certain.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/enso/

Matthew R Marler

Thank you for the update. I appreciate the straightforward language.

philincalifornia

How is it known that it’s a pause in warming, as the title implies ? It could be a plateau prior to a few years/decades of cooling, or even a plateau prior to descending into the next glacial period (God forbid).

Village Idiot,
Appropriate screen name.
Any Idiot can write an ad hominem attack like you just did, with no contrary evidence posted to dispute the facts presented in the article.
When the swivel-eyed alarmist contingent cannot refute empirical evidence, they always resort to playing the man, not the ball. That only shows that you lost the debate.
Why not just admit that you are incapable of refuting the article? Or post your own verifiable, testable evidence. At least then you would have a little credibility, and maybe a smidgen of respect. You currently have neither.
Run along now back to hotwhopper or wherever, to join your fellow head-nodders. Don’t bother us here, because we want facts and evidence, not baseless assertions.

richardscourtney

Village Idiot:
You admit to being an idiot so your repeatedly making the same error is understandable. However, your repeated assertions of it may mislead newcomers.
You provide the idiotic drivel again with your post at June 4, 2014 at 9:42 am.
Lord Monckton’s calculation is correct according to the principles of climastrology.
The analysed period is from now and back in time until a linear trend is discerned. There are good reasons to dispute the use of linear trend but that is what climastrology uses (linear trends are assessed by CRU, NCAR, NOAA, etc.) and, therefore, it is the only appropriate calculation.
If there were to be a valid objection then it would be that Lord Monckton should extend his analysis back to when a temperature trend is discernible at 95% confidence because climastrology uses 95% confidence limits. And if he were to do that then RSS shows no trend which differs from zero at 95% confidence for more than 22 years.
Richard

If UAH/RSS continue to diverge from NOAA I may have to prioritize development of a chart to compare the differenes between them

Matthew R Marler

Village Idiot: Any Idiot can take the same dodgy, diverging prop, select another cerasis periodum, and show over 15 years of warming and counting – and no need for accompanying tongue gymnastics in an attempt to slither around a possible coming El Nino spoiler.
The least idiotic and most pertinent data for assessing “warming” are the most recent 17-year RSS data. Other most recent 17 year data such as the HADCRUT series are not that different.
The least idiotic and most pertinent data for assessing “model fit” are the RSS data since the model runs. Other data since the model runs such as the HADCRUT series are not that different.
It is possible that any idiot may not appreciate the pertinence of these data selections to their purposes.

Richard M

It looks like this is premature. As far as I can see RSS has not yet released their May data. Was it released and then pulled back?
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
I do expect the data will show the pause continues.

Richard M

Wouldn’t you know. No sooner do I submit the comment and the May data now appears (.286).

Scute

At current trends, there will be a specific point in time during 2015 or 2016 when we can say that the preceding decade up to that date was cooler than the previous decade. So, for example, November 2005 to November 2015 was cooler than November 1995 to November 2005.
Please can someone remember to do the numbers on this? I think it would be useful for banishing one of the basic tenets of the warmists: that you shouldn’t look at individual years but the decadal trend. That assertion is always followed by “and this decade is hotter than the last”. In a couple of years, that claim will likely be false.

david dohbro says
RSS linear trends
last 5 yrs: -0.038C/yr (stat sign)
last 10yrs: -0.001C/yr (not stat sign)
last 15yrs: 0.002C/yr (no stat sign)
since 1998 el nino peak:-0.002C/yr (not stat sign)
last 20yrs: 0.004C/yr (not stat sign)
entire dataset: 0.012C/yr (stat sign)
henry says
my own data set latest update (to 2014)
last 14 years (from 2000)= – 0.014 degree C/yr
last 24 years (from 1990)= +0.008 degree C/yr
last 34 years (from 1980)= +0.012 degree C/yr
So, our last results (over the longest period) seems to agree with one another.
However, it seems RSS is picking up now the actual global cooling taking place, over the shorter period,
e.g. the -0.038K/yr jump over the past 5 years can be translated into -0,019/yr over the past ten years and to -0.014/yr over the past 14 years, all else being equal (zero).
Hence my data set is good, and so is RSS.
We already dropped 0.2 degree C since 2000, and nobody has noticed anything?
I AM STUNNED THAT NOBODY REALISES WHAT IS HAPPENING AND STILL BUNGLE ON ABOUT THERE NOT BEING ANY WARMING. GET REAL. IT IS COOLING.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

MikeUK

These graphs are the best way to show lack of warming, even non-technical people can understand them. The alarmists will try and soundbite (have I just invented a new verb?) the data, such as “3rd highest temperature in the last 20 years”, the only way to counter such attempts to “hide the pause” is to invite them to look at a graph such as this.
Even with a strong El Nino I’d need to see another 5 years worth of data before deciding if the pause has ended.

HelmutU

As you can read on Bob Tisdale website, Prof. Trenberth tells in interviews, that from 1950 to 1976 there was virtually no rise in temperature. Than came the pacific decadel shift (1976), the El Nino 1986-1988 and the El Nino 1997/98 rising the temperature in three steps. These events are not caused by CO2 especially man-made CO2,aAs Prof. K has shown in his papers 2001 and 2011 for the El Ninos.

With the May anomaly at 0.286, the 5 month average for 2014 to date is 0.235. Should the average stay this way, 2014 would rank 8th for RSS.
In order for RSS to beat its record from 1998 of 0.550, the average for the next 7 months needs to be 0.775. To do this, on the average, every month from June to December needs to smash its old record high monthly temperature. That is just not going to happen, so at the end of this year, the record high year for RSS will still be 1998.
The situation is similar for UAH, but not for GISS.

Richard D

Excellent post. Small typo in first paragraph should read months not years…..”the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero”
@richrdscourtney……”And if he were to do that then RSS shows no trend which differs from zero at 95% confidence for more than 22 years.”
Wow, thanks for that.

Addolff says:
June 4, 2014 at 9:31 am
Please forgive my ignorance here, but last months graph was from August 1996 to April 2014, and was headlined as 213 months “No global warming for 17 years, 9 months”.
Why is this graph from September 1996?
Can someone please tell me what I’m missing?

This is a good observation and you are missing nothing. Last month, the slope was indeed very slightly negative from August 1996 to April 2014 which is 17 years and 9 months. The May anomaly was 0.286, and this is slightly above the zero line of 0.234. As a result, the slope is now slightly positive from August, 1996, but slightly negative from September 1996. So while the total number of months did not change, the start and end each shifted by one month.

oMan

Thank you, Lord Monckton. Keep it going! I can report anecdotally that here in the NE USA it is one long cold spring. The solstice less than 3 weeks away, and the daytime highs rarely break above 70. But don’t worry, this climate disruption will soon be fixed by…big new regulations from the EPA. That are so important, they won’t take effect for years! But in the meantime, lots of expensive time to study, argue, plan, advise about them. A true circus and, increasingly, I appreciate the genius of Maurice Strong and creatures like him. It’s all about an endless and costly process controlled by them. Results? Measurable results? God forbid.

Gamecock

philincalifornia says:
June 4, 2014 at 9:55 am
How is it known that it’s a pause in warming, as the title implies ? It could be a plateau prior to a few years/decades of cooling, or even a plateau prior to descending into the next glacial period (God forbid).
============
Agreed. Only time will tell if it is an actual pause.
But in Lord Monckton’s defense, he does capitalize it a couple of times, as if Pause is the title of this period. I think that is a good way to use it, though he is not consistent.

Winston

I keep reading about a warming pause here, but read rebuttals elsewhere, like these:
Global warming ‘pause’ due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study
Gaps in data on Arctic temperatures account for the ‘pause’ in global warming
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gaps-in-data-on-arctic-temperatures-account-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-8945597.html
Since both excuses say they can account for all of the missing warming, which is correct? Or is it neither?

Mac the Knife

It is not ‘warming’ in Marquette Michigan, on the southern shore of Lake Superior. See link to picture of sizable floe ice below. Note: This is approximately the same latitude as Seattle Washington.
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b6d74ccfec83f202e8fe6904f77e201dd08ef892/c=25-2-289-200&r=x404&c=534×401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/06/02//1401739857000-marquette-ice.jpg

mark in toledo

my fear is that the El Nino turns severe and then we have to suffer through “a new record” ignoring the fact that it took 16 years to get a new “hottest year on record” and that we have been warming for 165 years. So even though I really WANT a good el nino for California, Texas and the entire Southwest, I am hoping it isn’t so strong.

Addolff

Thank you for your reply Mr. Brozek.
Again, please forgive my absence of intelligence, but if the anomaly for May had been flat or negative the graph would have said “17 years 10 months”?
It just seems a bit odd to a layman that Aug 96 to April 14 was flat, but when May 14 is above the average we move the start date to make it flat again.
Many, many thanks for the patience, yours in hope, an out of his depth Addolff!!!

mark in toledo

Addolff, the question being answered by Count Monckton is this:
“How long is the current pause in global temperatures?”
So he goes back far enough to keep it flat but not to show any rise. If we have a rather warm month, this can knock off a month at the beginning. We have also had at least one month where it grew by an extra month because we were enough below average that we were able to go back an extra month. I hope this makes sense.

“TRG” says that “four years ago we appear to have been on the predicted trend”. In fact, even at the peak of the 2010 el Nino the trend since 1990 was somewhat below the lower bound of the IPCC’s wide and excessive range of near-term projections. It would take some years of considerably warmer weather to bring the near-term trend close to what was predicted in 1990.
“Qam1” is correct that GISS and NOAA are continuing to massage their temperature measurements compared with the satellite record: but they will not be able to get away with doing that indefinitely.
David Dohbro puts an unerring finger on one of the central features of climate data misreporting: the propensity to quote values to more places of decimals than the input variables.
“Steve” is right about the fact that there has been some stratospheric cooling (though nothing like as much after 2000 as before). Stratospheric cooling may be a sign of Man’s influence, in that outgoing radiation that would have helped to warm the stratosphere is being retained in the troposphere.
Mr Cripwell says the satellites do not use platinum resistance thermometers. Roy Spencer, who designed and operates the satellites, says they do.
“El Nino Nanny” may yet be proven right in its contention that we may be looking at a Modoki el Nino, rather than a conventional one. If so, there will be less overall warming, but – if I understand matters rightly – there will be some more ice loss in the Arctic for the usual suspects to squeal about.
“Philincalifornia” justifiably asks how we know this is a “pause” in warming. We don’t know that, but – to be nice to the bedwetters – we call it a “Pause”, based on Dr Pachauri’s remarks about it in The Australian newspaper in February of 2013.
“Richard M” may like to know that there’s a defect at the RSS website by which when one first attempts to download the data from the URL mentioned on the graph the old data are displayed. It is necessary to press “F5” to refresh the page, even after one has just loaded it, so as to persuade it to disgorge the most recent data.
“Scute” makes an excellent point that if there comes a time when an entire decade’s data shows cooler than the previous decade we should make a point of saying so. However, we should concentrate chiefly – as Ross McKitrick recently said in his excellent presentation to Friends of Science in Canada – on the growing discrepancy between the models’ predictions and the observed outturn. Even if global warming were to resume at something like the 2 K/century rate observed from 1974-2006 (the fastest rate in the global instrumental record), it would take many years for real-world temperatures to approach the IPCC’s best estimates even of near-term warming, to say nothing of longer-term warming.
“Henry P” says there has been cooling since 2000. Yet from January 2000 to April 2014, on the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, there has been warming equivalent to 0.5 K/century.
“HelmutU” is quite right to point out the stepwise increases in global temperature coincident with the warming phase of the PDO from 1976-2001, with particularly strong step-changes associated with the 1986-88 and 1998 el Ninos. It is theoretically possible that the oceans store heat during the negative or cooling phases of the PDO and release it (largely in el Nino fits and starts) during the warming phases. In that event, global warming could be continuing as the usual suspects pretend they are certain it is: but, even then, it is certainly not occurring at anything approaching the predicted rate.
I am grateful to Werner Brozek for his excellent answer to Adolff, explaining why this month, like last month, the Pause is 17 years 9 momths long.
Finally, it is clear from the responses of Richard Courtney and dbstealey that they are as fed up as we all are with “Village Idiot” and its cowardly personal attacks from behind the cloak of anonymity. May I submit to Anthony and the moderators that it is time for “Village Idiot” to be told that it must either reveal its identity in each posting it makes or be banned? If they review its recent postings, they will find nothing but hate speech, and certainly nothing constructive.

NoFixedAddress

I keep asking,
“But what about the Koala Bears?”

Arno Arrak

I disagree that any El Nino will halt the pause. As it happens, El Ninos and La Ninas occur in pairs. As much as an El Nino raises the temperature the La Nina that follows will reduce it. You can see it in action if you look at the eighties and and nineties, before the arrival of the super El Nino of 1998. There are five El Nino peaks there, with La Nina valleys in between. Some idiot has marked the 1992/93 La Nina as Pinatubo cooling but you can just ignore that. These people are ignorant both of what an El Nino is and why there cannot be any volcanic cooling. To get the global mean temperature put a dot in the middle of a line connecting the El Nino peak and its adjacent La Nina valley as I did in figure 15 of my book “What Warming?” and connect the dots. It is advisable first to use a magic marker and cover up the cloudiness variable that creates a fuzz around satellite data. This is more accurate for defining global mean temperature than any of the various averaging methods in use. Regular ENSO oscillations were suspended when the super El Nino arrived but they resumed with the La Nina of 2008. The center point between the La Nina of 2008 and the El Nino of 2010 that followed lines up exactly with the platform defining the pause in the wake of the super El Nino of 1998.

lordMofB says
Yet from January 2000 to April 2014, on the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, there has been warming equivalent to 0.5 K/century.
henry says
UAH seems to be odd one out?
there are 4 main data sets showing it is cooling from 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
then we have my own data set, which is actually three
maxima, means and minima
which all three show that it is cooling from 2000

Andrew

Scute,
“At current trends, there will be a specific point in time during 2015 or 2016 when we can say that the preceding decade up to that date was cooler than the previous decade.”
I track HadCRUT4 primarily (despite the gross UHI in it). “The hottest decade evah was 2010” is not a coincidence – D11 was colder than D10, D12 was colder again, D13 was colder again, and D14 will probably be colder again.
The Idiot claims he can find some warming if hindcasting for 15 years. Quite so. Bravo – by starting at the depths of the 1999 supermegahyper La Niña, one can find warming at 1/10 the predicted rate. Please tell everyone!

PMHinSC

Typo 1st sentence
“…17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero..”

RH

From the OP: “No one now in high school has lived through global warming.”
True. But, the outfit I work for just hired a college student intern for summer break. He claims to have seen Al Gore’s travesty of a movie “at least five times” throughout his pre-college years.

Yesterday, I was at the Mauna Loa page looking at their historical data on co2. Although I have been there before, this time their annual growth rate chart caught my attention. On there, it can be seen that the yearly rate has grown since 1960. What I never noticed before is how closely it is tied to the ENSO. Every El Nino peak shows the highest rise in the yearly rate. La Nina coincides with the least rate of increase. In 1998, co2 peaks at 2.94 ppm which is the highest peak on the chart, 2003/05/10/12 are also in an upper range above +2.0 ppm as well as being higher temp years. In 1999 the La Nina dropped the yearly co2 to 0.93. This is obviously showing that the oceans are the main control for the rise and fall of co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans warm and co2 correspondingly rises with the reverse causing a decrease. How can anyone say that man is causing the rise in co ppm? Perhaps some 90% of the rise is natural due to the natural warming. This could even be 100% and we are only assuming that the increase is due to the hand of man. The low spot is in 1992 at 0.46. That would be Pinatubo effects more than likely, along with La Nina. Although the rate had already been decreasing for the prior two years after the El Nino peak around 1987/88. It is easy to see that a large La Nina in combination with more climate changes could lead to a negative year for the rate of co2.

Addolff says:
June 4, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Again, please forgive my absence of intelligence, but if the anomaly for May had been flat or negative the graph would have said “17 years 10 months”?
Yes, so let us assume it was exactly 0.00 from August 1996 to April 2014. And let us assume that the zero line was at 0.234. And we know that the July 1996 value was 0.116. That means that if May had come in somewhere between 0.234 and 0.116, the length of time for the pause would have been 17 years and 10 months. However if the value had been less than 0.116, it could have been 17 years and 11 months. I say “could” since a really huge drop could have even changed it to 18 years.
It is not easy to predict what a given new anomaly will do. What happens on the left side in August 1996 is just as important as what happens on the right side in May 2014. And being higher than the zero line does not necessarily mean that you cannot add a new month. If the rise above the zero line is small, then an extra new month could still be added, but it would have a smaller negative slope.

James Abbott

The Good Lord works in mysterious ways …
Apparently, his “Key facts about global temperature”
include:
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Whilst the Central England Temperature run is important, and the longest in the world, it is NOT a “global temperature” record, self evidently.
Secondly, as Monckton will presumably know being a student of such detail, the decade of the 1690s was exceptionally cold in England, not approached again in coldness until 1810-1819. It co-incided with the depths of the Little Ice Age.
Picking a run of years that starts in the 1690s is a good way of looking for a strong warming trend to then try and prove its all happened before – which is exactly what Monckton has done.