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

clip_image002By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

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

clip_image002

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image004

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

clip_image006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key facts about global temperature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical note

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

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

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

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

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MaxLD
June 4, 2014 1:49 pm

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.

Robin Edwards
June 4, 2014 1:50 pm

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.

sinewave
June 4, 2014 2:03 pm

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…..

RACookPE1978
Editor
June 4, 2014 2:13 pm

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?

Skiphil
June 4, 2014 2:21 pm

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

“To address this question, the UN’s Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the International Committee of Scientific Unions created an international scientific panel called the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG). Perhaps AGGG’s main accomplishment was to provide official auspices for a more activist group of experts….”

one of the highly biased meetings and documents which started it all, pre-IPCC:
1987 document which helped to launch the IPCC and UNFCCC

June 4, 2014 2:22 pm

>>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

Arno Arrak
June 4, 2014 2:46 pm

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.

Rob
June 4, 2014 2:47 pm

Nature, unlike man, knows no Politics,
Arrogance etc. It just is.

KNR
June 4, 2014 2:47 pm

‘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.

Arno Arrak
June 4, 2014 2:54 pm

most years! (not months, sorry)

john
June 4, 2014 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

June 4, 2014 3:36 pm

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.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 4, 2014 3:53 pm

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 . . . )

BillyV
June 4, 2014 4:13 pm

As long we like correlations, here are a few that may be worthy of review for AGW’ers to ponder: http://www.tylervigen.com/

Evan Jones
Editor
June 4, 2014 4:16 pm

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 . . .)

June 4, 2014 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.

Amos McLean
June 4, 2014 5:12 pm

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?

wayne Job
June 4, 2014 5:40 pm

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.

El Nino Nanny
June 4, 2014 6:18 pm

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 ?

Robert Barrow
June 4, 2014 7:44 pm

Is the pause in Global Cooling starting to come to an end?

thingadonta
June 4, 2014 8:36 pm

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.

Alastair James
June 4, 2014 9:45 pm

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?

TomR,Worc,MA,USA
June 4, 2014 9:51 pm

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

RoHa
June 4, 2014 9:54 pm

“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.

RoHa
June 4, 2014 9:58 pm

“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.