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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
george e. smith
June 6, 2014 1:57 pm

“””””…..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.

george e. smith
June 6, 2014 2:12 pm

“””””…..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.

June 6, 2014 2:26 pm

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

Village Idiot
June 6, 2014 2:33 pm

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.

george e. smith
June 6, 2014 2:38 pm

“””””…..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.

June 6, 2014 3:56 pm

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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
June 6, 2014 4:40 pm

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?

george e. smith
June 6, 2014 5:28 pm

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.

Mary Brown
Reply to  george e. smith
June 7, 2014 6:43 am

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.

Guenter Dantrimont
June 6, 2014 6:54 pm

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.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Guenter Dantrimont
June 7, 2014 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.

Reply to  Mary Brown
June 7, 2014 1:48 pm

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.

Chris Magnuson
June 7, 2014 4:43 am

[snip – slayer stuff -mod]

June 7, 2014 8:25 am

Has the temperature cooled? No? So what is the long term trend showing over the last 30 years?

June 7, 2014 8:27 am

Village idiot, you have fans, you are also a brave human to stick your head in the lions cage.

June 7, 2014 9:03 am

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

June 7, 2014 9:11 am

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.

richardscourtney
June 7, 2014 9:57 am

Gareth Phillips:
At June 7, 2014 at 8:27 am you say

Village idiot, you have fans, you are also a brave human to stick your head in the lions cage.

An anonymous coward may have sycophants but does not have a named “head” to risk and is not “brave”.
Richard

June 7, 2014 10:35 am

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.

Richard
June 7, 2014 8:23 pm

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.

Reply to  Richard
June 8, 2014 12:45 am

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)

Richard
June 7, 2014 8:27 pm

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.

Richard
June 8, 2014 2:23 am

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.

Reply to  Richard
June 8, 2014 3:11 am

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.

Richard
June 8, 2014 2:31 am

Since your theory is contradicted by facts, maybe the Earths climate and temperature is not so simple as you make it out to be.

Richard
June 8, 2014 4:27 am

“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”?

williamhhowell
June 9, 2014 8:58 am

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.

Mary Brown
June 9, 2014 10:27 am

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!

June 12, 2014 6:04 am

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.