By 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
UK Met Off ? Response please !
Bloomberg is now saying that a weak El Nino is expected.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/el-nino-seen-as-probably-weak-by-two-forecasters-as-event-looms.html
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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!
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?
Is the stratosphere cooling caused by heat being trapped lower in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases? At least in theory?
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.
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)
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.
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/
Thank you for the update. I appreciate the straightforward language.
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.
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
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.
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.
Wouldn’t you know. No sooner do I submit the comment and the May data now appears (.286).
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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!!!
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.
I keep asking,
“But what about the Koala Bears?”
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
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!
Typo 1st sentence
“…17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero..”
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.
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.
JIm Cripwell says:
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.
I use the RSS data, among other data sets for research purposes.
From the RSS site: http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
“RSS upper air temperature products are based on measurements made by microwave sounders. Microwave sounders are capable of retrieving vertical temperature profiles of the atmosphere by measuring the thermal emission from oxygen molecules at different frequencies.”
“Each product measures the mean temperature of the atmosphere in the thick layer. This brightness temperature TB measured by the satellite can be described as an integral over the height above Earth’s surface Z of the atmospheric temperature TATMOSPHERE weighted by a weighting function W(Z), plus a small contribution due to emission by Earth’s Surface τεTSURF.”
The lower troposphere temperature looks to be in the layer below about 5000 meters, which actually is quite high. So how well does that relate to the surface temperature anomalies? Maybe Dr. Spencer can shed some light on this.
It is a pity that the least squares regressions that are routinely reported in the “climate literature” – in which I include WUWT – do not as far as I know include a statistic that for practical purposes is more informative than “r-squared”. R-squared gives no information on the amount of data that have been fitted by the regression. Who is to know whether a value, say 0.02, indicates a regression that is significant at some chosen or favourite probability level? Without the information on the amount of data being used it is impossible to tell. Much more informative – if one feels constrained to present only one statistic that relates to probability – is the t-value for the coefficient, or preferably the confidence intervals for the coefficient at some appropriate probability level. By habit or convention many who report these statistics choose the 95% level, which to me in the context of climate is remarkably stringent. My expectation is that 90% or even 80% might be more interesting. Confidence levels that include the value zero show that the fitted line is not a good description of the underlying data.
Even more informative when plotting regression lines together with the individual data items would be the confidence intervals (again at an appropriate probability level) for the fitted line /and/ for a future single observation. The latter directly incorporates the residual standard deviation, which describes the scatter of individual points about the regression line, something that r-squared does not address.
These calculations are not difficult and should I believe be a required component of any report that uses simple linear regression as one of its components. Any analyses I carry out does these things routinely. They are frequently a stark reminder of reality in a world that appears to bypass standard statistical methods routinely.
So since the length of the pause has stayed at 17 years 9 months for two months there will probably be a few “the pause has paused” and “You have to cherry-pick your data to get a pause” arguments put forth anew by the warming crowd…..
Please QA me here, because I am always willing to learn by example and real values.
The supposed “sensitivity” of temperature ot CO2 doubling is:
(a) calculated from the average of 24 GCM’s by ultra-complex finite-element computer models running billions of iterations per second of finite element cubes representing the entire earth
(b) Calculated by finding the change in temperature per doubling of CO2:
(temperature (year(2) – temperature (year (1)) / log (CO2 at year(2) – CO2 year (1))
If so, does not
30 years of almost no change in CO2 (1815 – 1845) => a very large CO2 sensitivity? (temps went up)
30 years of low change in CO2 (1845 – 1875) => a negative CO2 sensitivity? (temps went down)
40 years of low change in CO2 (1875 – 1915) => a very large positive CO2 sensitivity? (temps went up)
30 years of low change in CO2 (1915 – 1945) => a very large positive high CO2 sensitivity? (temps went up)
30 years of medium change in CO2 (1945 – 1975) => a negative CO2 sensitivity? (temps went down)
30 years of large change in C02 (1975 – 1996) => a positive but low CO2 sensitivity? (temps went up)
17.75 years of large change in CO2 (1996 – 2014) => a negative CO2 sensitivity? (temp stayed steady)
If aerosols or volcanoes, please …. What is the measured aerosol levels worldwide at these times, and what are the actual continuously-erupting volcanoes at these times?
Great post!
This is an aside, but I think a fascinating bit of pre-history (pre-IPCC) to provide some context for the continuing pause. Recently I have been delving into some info on how the IPCC got started. Few now realize that early alarm and movement was being pushed by claims that there would be surface temp. increases of 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE (more likely the latter) under a couple of the main scenarios propounded to demand international “action” on climate and CO2. (see 2nd link below for relevant PDF doc.).
i.e. in addition to comparisons with the series of IPCC reports, it is “interesting” to see how huge the variance is between the initial scare projections which led to the creation of the IPCC and the actual empirical temp. data over recent years.
The template for a relatively few activists taking over the process in many scientific and international bodies was established right from the beginning. It may seem like very old news (1980s old) except that it is the open admission (boasting) of one of the most prominent scientifc activists, pushing through unwarranted group statements and plans ahead of genuine widespread scientific agreement. Activist cadres have pushed through their agendas in numerous organizations over the past 25+ years:
How the IPCC Got Started
By MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER Published: NOVEMBER 1, 2007
one of the highly biased meetings and documents which started it all, pre-IPCC:
1987 document which helped to launch the IPCC and UNFCCC
>>Monckton of Brenchley says:“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.
Who is going to stop them?
Other Climatologist? The same ones who are silent when it comes to other frauds like Climategate I & II, Glaciergate, the Hockey Stick, The Muller “Conversion”, The Gleick forgeries, etc ?
Or politicians? Democrats believe lying is OK if it promotes the cause. Republicans are spineless pansies. So not going to happen there
Just a note on your “Key Facts”. You say that “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.” I checked it out and that temperature rise is falsified. Firstly, there is a cabal of temperature falsification consisting of GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC climate sources. How do I know this? While doing research for my book “What Warming?” I noted that according to satellites the eighties and the nineties did not show warming until the super El Nino of 1998 arrived. There were ENSO oscillations there, but the global mean temperature did not increase for 18 years. The above-ground-based temperatures, however, were showing a temperature rise of about 0.18 degrees Celsius over this period. I even put a warning about it into the preface of the book but nothing happened for two years. Then, suddenly, without saying anything, they started aligning this temperature section with satellites. In studying what they had done I discovered someting very interesting. Namely, that they had all been subjected to identical computer processing and this had gone unnoticed for years. And then they screwed up because the computer left identical sharp upward spikes at the beginnings of most months in all three data-sets. They looked to me like noise at first and most people would think that too if it wasn’t for the identical locations in supposedly independent temperature sets on both sides of the Atlantic. Someone in authority should find out what was done, by whom, and why. The answer to why is very probably to create a false warming because they all have false warming that can be documented starting in 1979. If you have one of their long-period temperature curves that has not been smoothed and still shows the ENSO oscillations check out the 1998 super El Nino. It is a dead giveaway. In satellite records the dips on both sides of it that are considered La Ninas are of equal depth. In the Hadcrut dataset the right side is a tenth of a degree higher than the left side and this differential carries on into the pause platform that is visible in their 2008 version. When Michael Crichton appeared before the Senate he found the temperature manipulation he had observed the most objectionable feature of climate science. It is impossible to understand climate if you don’t even know what the temperature is actually doing.
Nature, unlike man, knows no Politics,
Arrogance etc. It just is.
‘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.’
For the same reasons Turkeys will not for Christmas , the reality is ‘the cause ‘ has been massive good news for an area which before was a little know about and less cared for ugly relation to the physical sciences. It is not just St Gore who has done very nicely indeed of this ‘game ‘ think if it where not for AGW , who in ‘the Team’ would be able to find a job doing anything but teaching at third rate high school.
No grand conspiracy needed merely just very human greed and self serving interest , combined with 101 politically gridded axes looking to jump on board the bandwagon to support their own agendas.
most years! (not months, sorry)
2012 was a very hot year it ranked as high as 10th hottest ever. Why does this graph show it as being cold? That ssems weird to me
john says:
June 4, 2014 at 3:21 pm
2012 was a very hot year it ranked as high as 10th hottest ever. Why does this graph show it as being cold? That ssems weird to me
Globally, 2012 ranked 12th on RSS. When showing 18 years, it is one of the cooler ones.
Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published.
Ah, melord, such words make all of our efforts worthwhile!
Note also that even the well sited urban stations run much lower trends than poorly sited rural.
Fashion tip: Microsite is the new UHI.
(I still have yet to convince you that what is needed to make a good climate model is not a yet another Billion-Dollar Baby, but a pencil and the back of an envelope. However, I continue to hold out hope . . . )
As long we like correlations, here are a few that may be worthy of review for AGW’ers to ponder: http://www.tylervigen.com/
Winston says:
June 4, 2014 at 11:48 am (Edit)
Since both excuses say they can account for all of the missing warming, which is correct? Or is it neither?
In one sense the alarmists are right, in another totally wrong. We have a constant, mild upward pressure from CO2. It is pressing up as the negative PDO presses down. We would normally be seeing real cooling now, instead of a flat trend.
However, what is sauce for the negative PDO is sauce for the positive. When PDO is in positive phase, at least half of that warming is NOT from CO2: CO2 is pressing up, and so is positive PDO.
The bottom line, however, is a warming of ~1.1C per century since 1950, which is the year CO2 (rather abruptly) became a significant player. We have had a near equal number of positive and negative PDO years since then, so that (more or less) cancels out, leaving us with: Lukewarming. At the ~same rate as melord projects.
Even that may turn out exaggerated — Negative PDO was “first”, and that has a spurious warming influence on the trend. Diminishing aerosol masking (however much or little) lso takes away from CO2 warming. (And then there is our precious surfacestations paper . . .)
Mr Abbott makes the elementary mistake of failing to consider both sides of the equation. If I ask the question, “What is the period that shows the most rapid supra-decadal, instrumental warming before the onset of the Industrial Revolution?”, the answer is that the warming from 1694-1733 occurred at 4.33 K/century equivalent, which cannot have been our fault. Though this was a Central England measurement only, there is plenty of historical evidence to show that the cold of the Little Ice Age was felt on both sides of the Atlantic and may well have been global. But, as the temperature facts also make plain, I have asked the same questions for the industrial era, and the answer is 2 K/century equivalent from 1974-2006: and that is a global figure.
The usual suspects are upset at my pointing out how rapid the warming of 1694-1733 was in central England. For it puts in some perspective their claims that the warming that stopped in the late 1990s was at an unprecedented rate. The rate was probably not unprecedented.
But …. but …. but … things MUST be warming – the UK Met Office announced last week that the spring of 2014 has been the 3rd hottest spring on record and the hottest in Scotland since 1910!
Perhaps 3rd hottest in a basement in Exeter maybe?
Three large solar cycles then a weak one centred on 1970, then we had the cooling scare, three large solars after , then the warming scare. Now we are in a very weak solar cycle that is now coming off it’s maximum, the next is predicted to be weaker again.
Historic cold periods were noted as having very weak solar cycles, it does not seem to be a coincidence but rather a cause. To my mind the opportunity to tax us to death for our wicked ways is rapidly coming to an end. The coming El Nino will not save the alarmist cause as the sun has not got it’s back. The oceans in their perambulations have been dumping their heat from the three previous large solar cycles and the sun is not going to reheat them to previous values for quite some time.
The 1998 super El Nino was the demise of global warming with the Earth dumping heat from the large solar cycles, the so called pause is the heat from the last large solar cycle. That heat too is almost gone, melting a bit of ice in the process.
The correct mechanisms that tie our varying climate to solar cycles, and the sun itself in how it works and why it varies are still mysteries. CO2 is innocent of all charges.
Amos McLean says:
June 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm
the UK Met Office announced …. that the spring of 2014
has been the ….. hottest in Scotland since 1910!
—–
“Last winter Scotland experienced exceptionally high levels of snow fall in the mountains and, with mid-summer’s day approaching, a surprising amount of that snow still remains. This means anyone heading up Ben Nevis will be walking on snow covered terrain, in some places up to a metre in depth still.” – The British Mountaineering Council 4th June 2014
read the article –
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/warning-warning-its-still-winter-on-top-of-ben-nevis
===========
Richard M says:
June 4, 2014 at 10:23 am
….. “May data now appears (.286).”
—–
Yes but, that figure that is for the so called zone of most
biological activity, from -70 to +83.5 degrees latitude of
the whole globe. Yet noticeably the continental USA figure
is much lower than in April (0.114 down from 0.178) and the
northern hemisphere active zone is hardly changed at all
(0.420 up from 0.419). Really it is the southern hemisphere
which has bumped up the whole world average, and this is odd
is it not, considering that the northern hemisphere is now
inclining closer to the Sun, and the south is entering Fall.
is el Nino Modoki responsible for this anomaly as the nino4
grows in strength, near Australia and Indonesia region ?
Still there is large amounts of Snow at the summit of
mountains, in the Europe Highlands we see in the press,
and USA & Canada, as well as in the vast Russian wilderness.
Will this cause a refrigeration effect in the northern summer ?
Is the pause in Global Cooling starting to come to an end?
It doesn’t matter to the nutty alarmists that it hasn’t warmed.
I have actually heard them say that it still would have been warmer if it hadn’t cooled, and that the models are correct because it you take out the cooling they are still tracking as they should.
Can anyone point me to a sensible but not too technical critique of the arguments that the oceans have continued to warm during the pause and that the top of the atmosphere satellite measured energy imbalance shows that the total energy of the entire climate system continues to rise?
Village Idiot says:…….
June 4, 2014 at 9:42 am
“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……….
…….and no need for accompanying tongue gymnastics in an attempt to slither around a possible coming El Nino spoiler.”
“possible coming El Nino spoiler.”
Saved. :- o
“No one now in high school has lived through global warming.”
Except, perhaps, for some very slow learners who are repeating a year or two.
“Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming.”
But maybe it takes twenty years for the effects of global warming to work its way through the system, so that the extreme weather now is the result of global warming that happened twenty years ago.
Or maybe it takes thirty years.
Or maybe even longer, so the extreme weather now is the result of the Mediaeval Warm Period.
In any case, we’re doomed.
This is good news. Truly.
Everyone should be happy. But they won’t be. They will make up something that shows how true it is that oil companies are the anti-Christ. Or racist. Or maybe the greatest evil is now homophobia.
I can’t keep up.
The headline is tautological. It should be either ‘Still no Global Warming’ or ‘No Global Warming for 17 years 9 months.’
It can’t be ‘Still no Global Warming for 17 years 9 months’ because it has never before been ‘No Global warming for 17 years 9 months’ – last month the situation was ‘No Global Warming for 17 years 8 months’. See?
If we’re insisting on meticulous accuracy from the Warmists…..
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.
Analysis of the significance of regression in this way has a serious deficiency in the context in which it is being applied here. The “significance” of a regression is strongly weighted to the gradient of the regression. It is due to the nature of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is flatness, no gradient. So when you have a flat regression, you are testing it against itself and not surprisingly there is no significant difference. The question being asked is “how significantly different from a zero, flat gradient, is this regression gradient that you find?”
Thus as the gradient gets steeper, the significance of the regression will increase even if the amount of noise variation stays the same. This is correct of course if the objective is just to test difference of slope from zero.
However in order to assess the “significance” of a flat, near zero gradient, a different question needs to be asked with a different null hypothesis. We should be asking “how significantly different is this regression slope from any other regression slopes?” i.e. an indication of the likelihood that the obtained regression truly represents the underlying trend, in which flatness is regarded as a “trend” of equal validity to any other trend with a gradient.
Does anyone know what statistical tests would address this question?
Christopher Monckton writes, “El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them.”
Reason No. 1 why models are worthless.
RoHa says:
But maybe it takes twenty years for the effects of global warming to work its way through the system, so that the extreme weather now is the result of global warming that happened twenty years ago. …..
—————————————————————————————————————-
Please don’t give them any ideas !
They could then play with their computer “models” indefinitely, looking for the pattern -:)
Imagine a world of no 1998 peak and no Climategate to have ever afforded skeptics a voice in the media or half of politics being converted to skepticism. They would have gotten away with it all, wholesale.
Allistair inquired: “Can anyone point me to a sensible but not too technical critique of the arguments that the oceans have continued to warm during the pause and that the top of the atmosphere satellite measured energy imbalance shows that the total energy of the entire climate system continues to rise?”
(A) The simple average of world tide gauges shows a slight deceleration corresponding to the pause, and overall utterly no extra Global Warming signal in our postwar emissions burst era. Liquid expansion is how thermometers themselves work so the ocean acts as a thermometer through any extra rise in sea level above the natural trend in which ice keeps melting away in our interglacial period. The reference to tide gauges is Church & White 2011, the tide gauge plot being extracted here:
http://postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/
Also, the actual sea surface temperature also shows the pause:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl
Which is why it’s hiding in the deep ocean, you see, where there’s no data, except remember how thermal expansion does give feedback on even deep ocean warming.
(B) A new paper in a physics journal checked satellite data to actually measure the overall extra warming over time as CO2 continues to rise, a physical experiment with a known variation in CO2 concentration, and it found very little impact, suggesting that feedbacks are not positive as the basis for all alarm is based upon and in fact is likely negative instead:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214500957
The “pause” and its possible extension also to oceans is less of an effective argument than the lack of any change in overall trend that the pause represents, more so than it represents an actual pause since anybody can see how noisy such plots are on varoius time scales. It’s also more important by representing further falsification of climate models, even if it’s not even considered to be a pause but just boring noise as warming still refuses to accelerate. That recent warming is perfectly precedented is seen by merely looking at a fair plot of the global average temperature:
http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg
That recent warming itself falsifies climate alarm is seen in how nearly all of the world’s very oldest single site theometer stations show it to be an exact continuation of the multi century natural warming trend:
http://s6.postimg.org/uv8srv94h/id_AOo_E.gif
Central England is a near perfect match to the global average temperature, variation wise, so it represents a wonderful proxy for it, showing that the song remains the same, and that recent warming is most likely mostly normal, not mostly enhanced.
The temperature fluctuations tend to follow the sunspots and solar flares. As long as this Landscheidt minimum continues, it will eventually lead to a distinct downward trend in global temperatures.
Even the given 1.2C per century since 1950 is way below what happened at the start of the roman and medieval warmings.
Beyond that, for the first time in history, we are capable of geoengineering our planet (either down here or from orbit) at any time. For the first time humanity has real control over our environment which makes scares about minor natural variations even sillier (or more corrupt for those making a living pushing the fraud).
change/decrease in maximum temperatures (henry’s global average)
last 40 years (from 1974) +0.034 degree C/yr
last 34 years (from 1980) +0.026 degree C/ yr
last 24 years (from 1990) +0.014 degree C/yr
last 14 years (from 2000) -0.010 degree C/yr
would any of you have an idea of what curve this is?
(I am beginning to doubt it is in fact from a sine wave)
Leaving out ocean temps, to be deliberately misleading. It is a crime deserving a harsh punishment.
Blasphemers! Average temperatures/no significant warming is obviosly proof of global dramatic climate change/disruption/warming/whatever the chatechism says this week. The Goreacle will not be pleased.
Phlogiston asked whether the regression slope (trend) calculated for a climate series should be compared with a value other than zero, on the basis that a null hypothesis of zero slope is not appropriate for the situation.
The first question to be addressed is whether some other hypothesised reference slope has a “known” numerical value together with a “known” standard error and degrees of freedom. My guess is that such a reference slope (or alternative null hypothesis) would be difficult to establish to the satisfaction of everyone who might be interested in the underlying arithmetic. If such reference statistics were available the comparison is simple enough by comparing the square of ratio of the two slopes with the f table for appropriate degrees of freedom for numerator and denominator. My belief is that it would do little or nothing to address the obvious question which is normally posed when a trend line is computed. This is of course “Is the estimated slope significantly different from zero?”, which is easily answered using the elementary statistical calculations I outlined here on June 4th at 1.50pm and which are found in every stats textbook. You can obviously compare the least squares slope with any other of your choice provided you have available the same sort of information for that slope. But there’s the rub. How do you arrive at those statistics? The choice of “zero slope” as your null hypothesis is really very sensible. You do not need any stats for it because zero is an absolutely fixed value. There’s no error. It is your stated gold standard and cannot be questioned.
In order to inform fully the readership of climate related postings/papers I strongly advocate presenting regression outcomes complete with the confidence intervals for the computed slope (which inherently include the amount of data used in the calculation) and the probability that the slope is different from zero. These statistics are all facets of the same basic calculations, and if published would give an immediate and non-disputable oversight of the situation. The regularly reported r-squared does not accomplish this objective. Of course, being time series, a correction for autocorrelation, such as Quenouille’s, should be incorporated, or, if omitted this should be clearly stated. This or any other correction serves to decrease the probability level associated with the slope, but the effect is not necessarily serious.
Have just realised that I wrote nothing about whether it is really sensible to fit a straight line to data that are grossly and obviously (by simple plotting methods) not linear in character. Think of things like the ENSO related data, PDO, AMO and countless temperature series. My studies of innumerable climate series have persuaded me that most of them have spells of remarkably stable (constant) data that are disturbed only by what is generally thought to be “noise”, but are punctuated at indeterminate times by a sudden change in underlying value, which is then frequently followed by a further stable period. Gradual change also occurs, but to me seems to be less common. I’m a firm believer in step changes being “normal” when it comes to climate observations.
Has anyone else noticed something similar?
Not logical really. To make a counter argument against AGW the natural variations must be cleaned from the temperature record, and they should be analyzed separately. It’s a bit funny when you think about it, that in this article the nature is being summoned against the humanity.
If the next El Nino releases higher temperatures to the atmosphere from the oceans and the trend line ticks upwards, do you think that the nature is then faulty?
steve says:
June 4, 2014 at 9:34 am
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?
Yes, in a post on Le Chateleliers Principle – Here – http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/le-chatelier-and-his-principle-vs-the-trouble-with-trenberth/ E.M.Smith shows the cooling action of CO2 in the stratosphere. With cooling flows toward both poles not what the CAGW gullibles would want you to know.
IanW says
And is there any explanation for the dropping?
henry says
actually
it can be explained naturally
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t worry about the carbon dioxide
are there no mathemathicians here?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/#comment-1654802
Probably the highest case scenario is that temps warm 0.25 deg in the period 2000-2025. That assumes immediate resumption of strong warming.
So, in 2025, even if the temp is up just 0.25 deg for the first quarter of the century, are we still going to be arguing about global warming? Don’t you think it will be a dead issue scientifically and publicly by then? And that assumes resumption of strong warming.
If we make it to 2025 with no warming, will it be a dead issue ?
” ºC ” for heavens sake.
Has anyone noticed that Christopher Monckton’s post is comparing global surface temperatures measurements and models against troposphere (not surface!) temperatures?
The proper comparison is models of troposphere temperatures against measurements of troposphere temperatures. This is on the RSS web site: http://www.remss.com/research/climate
They point out that “The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.”. The measurements are at the lower end or below the CMIP-5 model simulations since roughly 1998 and
“The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.”.
My guess is cloud feedback effects will be the primary factor since evidence is coming in that it is slightly positive feedback rather than the previously expected negative feedback.
With all due respect, I have to note that I believe Mr. Cripwell is correct about the way in which orbiting satellites measure earthly temperatures.
I suspect that you’re referring to Dr. Spencers article here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/, where he indicates that the satellite uses a platinum resistance thermometer measuring an internal target as one of two data points needed to calibrate the microwave radiometer (the other data point is 2.7K by looking at deep space).
The actual detection of the radiance is done by the microwave radiometer, not the PRT.
After all, PRTs require the platinum filament to be immersed or in contact with the medium to be measured. Not an easy task for a satellite orbiting at 850 km (for polar orbits) much less for the geostationary ones at 35,880 km.
Otherwise, enjoyed your posting.
Arno, If I remember portions of Bob Tisdale’s very informative posts, I think he would disagree with you about your (bolded) statement above.
[+ emphasis]
Charlie, please see the replies to me from Werner Brozek. I needed it explained too.
It’d be great if Bill Nye and, say another lightweight, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, debated Monckton on live TV. Might as well include Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkins. Call it Cosmotologists versus Reality. It’d be great.
“Ian” says my graphs compare surface temperatures predicted by models with measured tropospheric temperatures. In fact, I compare not temperatures but temperature anomalies. That is why, to answer Max Beran’s point, I use the notation “Cº”, indicating temperature anomalies, rather than “ºC”, indicating actual temperatures.
Since lower-troposphere and surface temperatures move more or less in lock-step thanks to the uniformity of the temperature lapse rate, lower-troposphere and surface temperature trends, which are determined from the anomalies, will be near-identical. Indeed, my own comparison of, say, the warming rate since January 2001, the beginning of the millennium, shows near-identical trends whether one takes the mean of the three key surface datasets or the mean of the two satellite datasets.
“Ian” also says the cloud feedback was originally thought to be negative and is now thought to be positive. In fact, it is the other way about. The cloud feedback was thought to be quite strongly positive, but work by Roy Spencer and others has demonstrated it to be negative.
The primary reason why the world is not warming as fast as had been predicted is that the predictions were exaggerated because the models had been tuned to assume too large a warming effect from CO2. A secondary reason is that the models are insufficiently capable of taking natural variability into account.
All other things being equal, one would expect some global warming to occur, but, on balance, not very much. For this reason, I do not expect the long Pause to continue indefinitely. However, I do expect the growing discrepancy between predicted and observed temperatures to continue to widen for the foreseeable future.
And I’d be delighted to take up “cedarhill’s” suggestion of a debate against Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy, but I’m reasonably sure his minders would see to it that he did not expose his absence of climatological knowledge on the air. In general, the Gorons of this world will not debate me. The last time I managed to take part in such a debate was earlier this year on Irish radio, where the host and the three other guests were all fervent true-believers. I was in the studio from the beginning of the program, but was not allowed to sit at the mike and participate until halfway through.
Afterwards, the president of the Dublin Historical Society, who had invited me to Ireland, said, “Four against one – they didn’t stand a chance.”
The growing reluctance of the usual suspects to take part in debate is a tacit but telling acknowledgement on their part that they are wrong.
“””””…..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?…..”””””
Well Addolff, what you are missing is the set of rules for the game.
Rule # 1 Get the (RSS) data for the current (most recent) month.
Rule # 2 Get the data for the previous month..
Rule # 3 Check whether the Temperature trend is statistically different from zero, using well understood statistical mathematics.
If the answer is yes, then stop, and report the interval.
If the answer is no, replace earlier month with the previous month, and go to rule # 3.
So the reason the start month advanced by one month, is that Rule #3 gave a yes for the next earlier month.
The game requires NO statistically different from zero trend, up to the most recent reported data. The algorithm, simply determines the LONGEST CONTINUOUS ZERO TREND record till now.
“””””…..williamhhowell says:
June 5, 2014 at 5:44 pm
With all due respect, I have to note that I believe Mr. Cripwell is correct about the way in which orbiting satellites measure earthly temperatures. …..”””””
Is it the “zeroth” Law of Thermo-dynamics , that says; in effect.
Two systems that are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
So you can use any calibrated thermometer you like wherever you like to compare to two thermal systems, to prove that those two systems are at the same temperature.
“””””…..Ian says:
June 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm
Has anyone noticed that Christopher Monckton’s post is comparing global surface temperatures measurements and models against troposphere (not surface!) temperatures?…..”””””
And have YOU noticed that Lord Monckton, is NOT comparing reported (RSS) troposphere measured temperature anomalies, to ANYTHING but themselves.
In particular; he makes NO COMPARISON of anything measured, to ANY MODEL RESULTS.
The algorithm simply determines the LONGEST CONTIGUOUS INTERVAL up to the present latest data; for which the temperature anomaly trend is NOT statistically different from zero.
Now having reported that; he may also mention in passing, what the model results purportedly project for that same time interval.
But that is of course simple fiction. The computer model simulations, whenever you run them, and for coverage of whatever time epoch, are connected in no way, to anything real that is ever measured anywhere at any time, by anybody.
It is a value that Christopher Monckton provides with these frequent updates showing the observed differences between the IPCC endorsed climate model predictions and the observed temperature time series data.
For the public debate an important question is this. Why has the IPCC consistently for more than a decade chosen unjustified alarming model output over natural looking observed reality? Doesn’t it mean that it is not science that the IPCC represented when it did that?
That public debate should be given strategic priority by reasonable skeptics.
John
Sir Christopher. I’m becoming increasingly uneasy about your unhealthy obsession with my personal details. Plenty of contributors on this site use pseudonyms – it’s an accepted practice.
To quote the Bard (Romeo and Juliet Act II, Scene II):
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
If I gave any ‘real sounding’ name would that satisfy you? Better still, you could choose one for me yourself. I can’t be fairer than that!
My comments cannot be classed as “cowardly personal attacks” or “hate speech” when compared to the level of civility which is common in this little community. As an experiment, I once cut and pasted some of the common terms of personal abuse, used to describe climate scientists, into a comment. This comment was immediately censored by the Mods as abusive. Obviously some are allowed to be abusive – yourself being a prime example – others not.
“If they review its recent postings, they will…certainly [find] nothing constructive.”
More constructive than many comments, but not on message as you like them to be.
I draw attention to your ‘preferred data set’. You prefer it, you have said, because it is the most accurate. It is most accurate, you have said, because it peaks ’98 ’99 El Nino temps higher than the other data sets! To judge RSS as ‘most accurate’ (closest to the real global temperatures) you must know what the real global temperatures are. Logic for first graders. Share this information with us, please!
I draw attention to over 15 years of warming (and counting), adopting your method of selecting a cerasis periodum, and using your data set of choice. Constructive and educational, I think.
“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?”
Oh, dear! Oh, dear, dear me! This from one of the foremost thinkers and policy initiators of our age. Next step burn the books, then set up the concentration camps to keep the dissenters quiet.
“””””…..Robin Edwards says:
June 5, 2014 at 8:06 am
Phlogiston asked whether the regression slope (trend) calculated for a climate series should be compared with a value other than zero, on the basis that a null hypothesis of zero slope is not appropriate for the situation……”””””
Robin, statistical mathematics is a highly exact mathematical discipline, with well understood rules for computing its results.
Those results are ALWAYS exact, as they are always performed on a FIXED DATA SET of exactly recorded (known) numbers.
So no uncertainty of any kind accompanies the results of statistical calculations on ANY data set.
The Monckton “game” in this case, simply performs those exact algorithmic calculations, on two data sets. (actually one) The (RSS) data sets for the latest, most recent month, and the set for all the same data since some earlier previous month.
It asks a single question. Is the rigorously calculated Temperature trend for that contiguous data set ending with the current month, statistically different from zero. If not, it simply extends the start time back one month earlier, and repeats the calculation.
The only possible answers, are YES and NO.
If one wants to create another branch of mathematics; perhaps “Fauxstats”, with a different set of axioms and rules; one can do that. It’s a wide open field, making up mathematics. We made up ALL of the mathematics we currently have; why stop now ??
But Christopher uses what we already made up, and its rules. That’s why it works the way it does. No mystery at all.
Village Idiot,
As I’ve mentioned before, you have a great screen name. It fits. The only better one I could think of would be ‘Mr Pompous’.
First, RSS data covers the globe, hence, ‘global warming’ is recorded, as compared with selected thermometers in selected locations. And the start date of 1997 was chosen, not by skeptics, but by your alarmist clique. But now, they don’t like where that has led.
Next, you say I draw attention to over 15 years of warming…
On your planet, maybe. But here on Earth, global warming stopped more than 17 years ago. Sorry about what that does to your religious belief system.
Finally, whatever comment you refer to that was snipped [assuming you are being honest; you provided no link], you have to understand that skeptics are constantly being censored. There is hardly an alarmist blog on the internet that does not censor inconvenient facts posted by skeptics.
So you will understand that I am amused by your hurt feelings over one trivial instance. But the good part is that you don’t come anywhere near William Connolley’s sniveling, whining complaints when the tables are turned.
Now why don’t you argue science, instead of being so fixated on Lord Monckton? Your ad hominem attacks only demonstrate that you have lost the scientific debate. Your only response now is to play the man, not the ball.
Skeptics should be cheered by your posts. They indicate that scientific skepticism is winning the debate. I know that sucks from your perspective, but we have been on the receiving end for some time, and schadenfreude feels good at long last.
Bookmarked. Thank you.
Note: Actual global average temperature increase since 1970’s baseline: 1/5 of one degree in 40 years. Does that not argue for a 1/2 of one degree in 100 years?
The difficulty that some people have with statistics, is totally inexplicable to me. As I have pointed out, it is an exact discipline, like most branches of mathematics. Exact results with no uncertainty (if you just follow the rules.?)
The difficulties arise when people, for some totally unknown reason, try to apply the results, to unknown numbers that are not even part of the data set to which the statistics was applied.
You can’t do statistics on unknown numbers.
if you apply statistical mathematics to a number set, which have say a time sequence to them; a first or earliest number, and a last or latest number, those results can tell you nothing at all about any next number following the latest, or any previous number preceding the earliest number. It will not tell you whether the new number, will be smaller than, (or larger than) either of those end numbers of the set. The predictive value is zero, and the results apply only to those numbers that are members of the set, and no other numbers.
Extrapolating beyond the numbers of a data set, is just a fool’s game; with no validity to it at all.
George says…
“if you apply statistical mathematics to a number set, which have say a time sequence to them; a first or earliest number, and a last or latest number, those results can tell you nothing at all about any next number following the latest, or any previous number preceding the earliest number. It will not tell you whether the new number, will be smaller than, (or larger than) either of those end numbers of the set. The predictive value is zero, and the results apply only to those numbers that are members of the set, and no other numbers.
Extrapolating beyond the numbers of a data set, is just a fool’s game; with no validity to it at all.”
Are you serious? I use statistics every day to forecast the next number in the data set… a number which hasn’t occurred yet.
This is called “forecasting”.
Give me a sequence of hourly temperatures for a week or a year or 100 years and I can make accurate forecasts of the next hour’s temperature…the next number in the sequence The statistics can easily ferret out the 24 hour waves and 365 day waves and climatology by time of day and day of year.
Such a forecast would crush persistence or using the average or using climo.
If it’s July 5 in Phoenix and the temp is 70 deg at 8am, a simple statistical model would forecast much warmer for 9am, and be right almost all the time.
Same applies for monthly and yearly temperatures of the earth’s surface. The last century of monthly data has shown mean reversion works on short time frames and trend following on longer time frames. So, global temps can be forecasts fairly well on short time frame from simple stats.
If it’s a fool’s game, then I’m a fool.
If you are sitting in your parked car naked and dress up with your winter jacked, how much temperature rise would you expect if you read the instrument panel? None at all? Right and THIS is exactly what the satellite has measured. CO2 is a heavy gas, therefore concentrating mostly in the lower troposphere and almost nothing of it in the higher troposphere. So all its effect of capturing heat is obviously done very near the ground – if you measure temperature above like the satellite in the upmost graph you will not measure any rise in 170 years, even if half of our continents might be flooded by sea level rise.
Next point: In the tropics there is not so much glacier ice to melt, but there is much in polar regions. So the temperature that matters most is arctic surface temperature and what comes next to this effects is – from the same source that our Lord used – to be seen here:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_north55-80.png
Do I see arise there? Well, interesting but not surprising that our Lord did not chose this one.
Same source – I repeat it!
After we saw this very same claim 3 months ago I fear we will get this irrelevant measurement 4 times a year from now. How boring.
Yes, the “Lord” had the audacity to use global temps instead of cherry picking high latitude NH temps which you claim he should have. What about those high latitude SH temps? Shouldn’t they be racing upwards, too?
It’s my opinion that the significant warming over high latitude land masses in winter at night is a likely sign of AGW. But I just don’t see the C …as in CAGW. This just isn’t scary.
Mary Brown says:
June 7, 2014 at 6:58 am
Yes, the “Lord” had the audacity to use global temps instead of cherry picking high latitude NH temps which you claim he should have. What about those high latitude SH temps? Shouldn’t they be racing upwards, too?
It’s my opinion that the significant warming over high latitude land masses in winter at night is a likely sign of AGW. But I just don’t see the C …as in CAGW. This just isn’t scary.
–> Mary, you completely ignored my MAIN point but started hair splitting about my secondary points. Why so? No good reply to my main point?
The “Lord” just measured temperature OUTSIDE the more and more “improving” insulation, like measuring how the temperature in a car changes if I change from sitting naked within to wearing a winter dress. Obviously my winter dress will never heat up the car – quite the contrary. But what counts is my body will get warmer then.
The same is true to earth – CO2 is essentially an insulator, so who can be really surprised that ABOVE its main concentration near the ground it never will get any warmer?
My secondary points were just to illustrate the outcome of this – but debating them without any comment on the main point is, well, pointless.
[snip – slayer stuff -mod]
Has the temperature cooled? No? So what is the long term trend showing over the last 30 years?
Village idiot, you have fans, you are also a brave human to stick your head in the lions cage.
I appreciate these updates but the key thing that needs highlighting for the public is that durnig this period, CO2 has continued to increase.
We need to be careful about our triuphalism and preaching to the choir because eventually things will turn. And then it will come back to bite us if we have not succeded in foucusing the publics attention on the correlation. That is why the key point about CO2 needs to be kept in the public view.
And we need to keep reminding the agents of Minitrue as they continue to ‘snow’ the public. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/ombudsman-responds-to-pbs-clim-1/78370
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/09/climate_change_creates_a_storm.html
One is forced to wonder when the pause will be taken seriously by the warming community as a climatic trend. Since climate is, by definition, about long-term conditions, we have been told repeatedly that the pause has not been long enough to be significant. That is puzzling, since it was the distinct rise in temperatures from about 1980 to 1998 that replaced fears of a new ice with today’s warming hysteria.
Gareth Phillips:
At June 7, 2014 at 8:27 am you say
An anonymous coward may have sycophants but does not have a named “head” to risk and is not “brave”.
Richard
A sycophant is not quite the same as a fan Richard. Can I recommend the O.E ? I think Village idiot is brave because he says what he thinks in a reasonably calm and measured manner. He probably knows he will get insulted, harassed and cyberbullied, but he is still prepared to speak what he sees as the truth. He does have a nom de plume, but many many others have the same and are rarely criticised for the idea. You will notice Richard that I also use my own name, so hopefully you won’t include me in your latest invitation to a food fight, but if someone does not wish to use their real name, that’s ok with me, as long as they are not hypocritical about it. You must admit, the aliases are pretty inventive, I like The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley ” which usually brings a smile and Neilfutureboy which you must admit is pretty inventive.
Günter Dantrimont “The same is true to earth – CO2 is essentially an insulator, so who can be really surprised that ABOVE its main concentration near the ground it never will get any warmer?”
Is your analogy with a person sitting in a car quite right? A person sitting in a car has internal body heat, the Earth on the other hand, though it has some internal heat, would be far colder without the Sun heating it up, as its primary source of warmth. Again if the temperature difference between the body and its surroundings ie the outer layers of the atmosphere were to increase, would not the heat loss from the warmer body increase also?
Then again a person even if he were to put on a jersey in his car would maintain a uniform temperature, within narrow bounds, because he has an internal thermostat. Some say the Earth also has a thermostat that maintains its temperature within certain boundaries.
Lastly what is the evidence that a cooler Earth is to be vastly preferred over a slightly warmer Earth? During all the years that the Earth has warmed since 1960 the food production has increased dramatically, whereas cold winters have been catastrophic for food production.
It is almost unbelievable how much efforts can be taken, to avoid staying on topic. Yes, I am willing to discuss the effects of anthropogenic global warming, but after my first commment was only rebutted in it’s secondary thoughts (warming is unequally distributed, more intense in the arctic where it makes more harm in matters of melting ice) I clearified my primary thought, intentionally left out any secondary thought, as much I would have liked discussing them, and still…..
….. only secondary thoughts are commented, even if they have to started new (agricultural benefit of temperature rise).
Why can’t we FIRST focus on the fact, that the most irrelevant temperature development above most CO2 in the asmosphere was measured to come to the -WRONG- conclusion of no global warming for 17 years?
That was the Headline choosen by out british Lord here. Do you remember?
After we can consent on this subject, I am willing to discuss everything with you, you like and would be een more willing to discuss my secondary thoughts as well, as for instance sea level rise that is obviously higher, then if global warming was not as “unfairly” distributed as it is.
(Now awaiting the next rebuttal regarding my secondary thought that slipped my mouth – again)
PS “so who can be really surprised that ABOVE its main concentration near the ground it never will get any warmer?”
Never? And why should it get colder? Our Sun is not a constant nor is the Galaxy though which we travel.
Günter Dantrimont “If you are sitting in your parked car naked and dress up with your winter jacked, how much temperature rise would you expect if you read the instrument panel? None at all? Right and THIS is exactly what the satellite has measured….if you measure temperature above like the satellite in the upmost graph you will not measure any rise in 170 years, even if half of our continents might be flooded by sea level rise.”
I am not defending anyone. But your statement of facts is wrong. The satellite temperatures do not measure a constant temperature, they measure 1. A fluctuating Temperature and 2. A temperature that has risen over its recorded measurements.
Then you go onto say:
“In the tropics there is not so much glacier ice to melt, but there is much in polar regions. So the temperature that matters most is arctic surface temperature and what comes next to this effects is – from the same source that our Lord used – to be seen here:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_north55-80.png
Do I see arise there?” Yes you do, but this again contradicts your statement “.if you measure temperature above like the satellite in the upmost graph you will not measure any rise in 170 years”
Either the temperatures should show no rise according to your theory or they do. You cant have it both ways.
First of all I never said Earth’s climate is simple at all. Quite the contrary, I said many times everywhere on the internet, that Earth’s climate is one of the most complex systems known to mankind – essentially only topped by life itself in complexity.
BUT: Exactly because it is so complex I tried to keep things simple in our discussion and to focus just on the wrong cherry picked selection of the only satellite data taht shows no rise, as was expectable from our Lord.
Second I fear I must apologize for my restricted English. I am a German and at meddle school I even was one of the worst pupils in learning English. Later on this improved, but it still is hard for me to coin complicated thoughs, as you might have realized by my funny words for the naked man in the car. But I think even my weak English made it clear that I self evidently saw the fluctuations in the upmost graph that was selected by Lord Monckton. I implied you all understand what he tried to say and this was, what I criticised: No temperature rise is true – but for essentially the only measurement that doesn’t matter at all, essentially “behind” the CO2 infrared insulation.
I must admit I do not understand, what you exactly mean by
“2. A temperature that has risen over its recorded measurements.”
Sounds to me as if you disagree with Lord Moncktons claim yourself?
And again I must apologize for my imprecise argument:
Quote===
“So the temperature that matters most is arctic surface temperature and what comes next to this effects is – from the same source that our Lord used – to be seen here:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_north55-80.png
===End Quote
…..When I said “comes next to this effects” I meant “comes nearest to this effects”
and for the purpose of this debate I used data from the same source, SATELLITE data,
but I explicitly wrote that surface temperature matters most and I implied that
the audience here knows that this very satellite delivers no surface temperature
at all.
So what you call my “contradiction” is but a donation by me to the benefit of the discussion.
Right from the beginning I had the opinion that this Satellite is not beneficial to the purpose
of deciding the question if there is global warming or not in the first place.
But what would it have brought to our discussion?
So I made some friendly round up and not I am called contradictory.
In one sentence what matters:
Arctic and antarctic are heating up more then tropics, so average global warming does
not even reflect the effects causing ice melt and sea level rise at all – let alone the
even less changing temperatures in the troposphere where it doesn’t matter at all,
at what height the falling ice will melt to water drops on its way to the ground.
Lord Monckton selected a graph that does not support his claim.
And this ist the point that really matters.
Since your theory is contradicted by facts, maybe the Earths climate and temperature is not so simple as you make it out to be.
“I must admit I do not understand, what you exactly mean by
“2. A temperature that has risen over its recorded measurements.””
I mean that since the recording of satellite temperatures began the temperature has risen. According to you it should have shown no temperature rise.
“surface temperature matters most and I implied that … this very satellite delivers no surface temperature at all…essentially “behind” the CO2 infrared insulation”
If the satellite temperatures have no bearing on the surface temperatures, then how come you are using the same evidence, (essentially “behind” the CO2 infrared insulation), to prove that arctic temperatures have risen? Shouldn’t that also be “essentially “behind” the CO2 infrared insulation”?
george e. smith says:
June 6, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Is it the “zeroth” Law of Thermo-dynamics , that says; in effect.
Two systems that are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
So you can use any calibrated thermometer you like wherever you like to compare to two thermal systems, to prove that those two systems are at the same temperature.
I says:
Although true, that’s not the relationship between the PRT and the microwave radiometer. Read the article at the link I provided for the details, but in brief the radiometer is not measuring temperature, it’s measuring radiance.
The radiometer is then pointed at the target the PRT is bonded to and the radiance of that target is used to calibrate a linear conversion of radiance to temperature. Nowhere is it stated or implied that the PRT is at thermal equilibrium (out in orbit) as the system (in this case, the Earth’s troposphere, way below the satellite) the radiometer is measuring – in fact the assumption is that it is not.
After all, if the PRT were in thermal equilibrium with the troposphere, there would be no need to use it for a calibration point, one would simply use it to read the temperature and be done with it.
Günter Dantrimont says:
June 7, 2014 at 1:48 pm
–> Mary, you completely ignored my MAIN point but started hair splitting about my secondary points. Why so? No good reply to my main point?
Probably because I don’t understand what you are talking about. I suppose I’m just dense.
I’m also perplexed why surface temperature is not important when measuring the warming. That’s where I live!
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Mr Abbott makes the elementary mistake of failing to consider both sides of the equation. If I ask the question, “What is the period that shows the most rapid supra-decadal, instrumental warming before the onset of the Industrial Revolution?”, the answer is that the warming from 1694-1733 occurred at 4.33 K/century equivalent, which cannot have been our fault. Though this was a Central England measurement only, there is plenty of historical evidence to show that the cold of the Little Ice Age was felt on both sides of the Atlantic and may well have been global. But, as the temperature facts also make plain, I have asked the same questions for the industrial era, and the answer is 2 K/century equivalent from 1974-2006: and that is a global figure.
The usual suspects are upset at my pointing out how rapid the warming of 1694-1733 was in central England. For it puts in some perspective their claims that the warming that stopped in the late 1990s was at an unprecedented rate. The rate was probably not unprecedented.
Of course the fact that the temperatures were measured indoors over the latter part of that time period wouldn’t have anything to do with it.
“Phil.”, following its usual habit of picking nits, tries to explain away the rapid Central England warming of 1663-1762. However, the issue he raises was among those considered by Parker and Manley when constructing the dataset. And we have considerable historical evidence indicating that the little ice age was exceptionally cold and that temperatures recovered rapidly thereafter. It is quite likely, therefore, that the 2 K/century equivalent warming rate observed globally from 1974-2006 was not unprecedented in the recent temperature record.