RSS shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months

After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.

Yet 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 far 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 per century. 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-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 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. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the RSS and UAH monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though numerous more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

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

clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, 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 zero trend (bright blue).

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 equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero 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.

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 or even shorten 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 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-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 high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 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 4.8 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 5 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 214 months September 1996 to May 2014 – more than half the 426-months satellite record.

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AndyL

“Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends”
You rely on the advice of a man who can’t even do statistical analysis using Excel?

Thank you sir.
Do the satellites record the measured regional temperature anomalies? That is, do we know the historic measured Arctic and Antarctic troposphere anomalies since 1979?

pokerguy

The coming el nino will be moderate at best. The models are now catching up on what Joe. B. and Joe D. have been saying for months. Weakish Modoki.

AlecM

CO2-AGW is near zero,offset by systemic reduction of atmospheric humidity as [CO2] rises.
The reason why will emerge in due course!

Murray

The fastest warming rate since 1976 seems to be based on surface instrument temperature, and is probably overstated by more than 50% due to warming biases in the surface instrument records.. GW theory says the lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface. Does no trend in the satellite record then require a negative trend for the surface? If you start your RSS trend in Q4 1997, which doesn’t look much like cherry picking, there seems to be a slightly negative trend for 16.5 years. Murray

coolclimateinfo

The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.

Latitude

Well….obviously you are cherry picking by starting from today and working backward……LOL
The computer games will never be right……the games aren’t cooling the past…and warming the present fast enough…and on a daily basis…the entire temp history has changed since they initialized the games

John G.

Lovely.

Eliza

You could say that all the surface data since 1880 to current has been fabricated.There probably has been 0 warming since 1880. Refer to Steven Goddards site.Satellite data just picks up where the fabrication ended and so no warming

RMB

There can never be global warming in addition to the heat created by the sun’s rays entering the ocean. “Heat” in the atmosphere cannot pass into the ocean because it is totally blocked by surface tension. If you believe this to be incorrect try heating water through its surface by convection not radiation. A bucket of water and a heat gun will do the trick.
When the sun goes quiet as now the world gets colder because there is no heat in addition to the rays of the sun. The sun’s rays penetrate the ocean’s surface heat in the atmosphere is blocked.

Not to belabor the concept: Could it be the Sun? To make this easy lets call 1960 Solar Cycle [19] -> 100% and use the area under the Sunspot count curves [Summation of value times month] [ or area under UV measurements].
Peak Year Solar Cycle Area under Curve
~1960 [19] 100%
~1970 [20] 50%
~1980 [21] 75%
~1990 [22] 75%
~2001 [23] 50%
~2012 [24] 30%
The Oceans store heat from the Sun. So, is the 2M km2 ice extent anomaly in Antarctica an indication of the heat leaving the Oceans? If so, then the pause is going to extend with temperatures declining [as per reduced Solar activity listed above].

coolclimateinfo

jlurtz – you’re on the right track – my work indicates that temps follow solar closely above a minimum level. Exciting times ahead as secret to solar-driven climate change is revealed!

coolclimateinfo

RMB – couldn’t have said it better myself!

RMB

Thanks mate its only taken me 73yrs to figure it out.

Martin

If I recall correctly, only 5 years ago even the alarmist were claiming the warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to ‘0.7 C’. I suspect some ‘adjustments’. Or maybe it was from 1850.

Robert of Ottawa

Warmistas predict rising temperatures due to rising CO2. CO2 is rising and temperatures are not rising. Theory falsified. Unfortunately too many comfy arses are sitting on cushy chairs.

Ben Wilson

Could one of you smart guys (or gals) tell me. . . .
Just how much of a temperature bump would there have to be before the warmistas could proclaim that the pause was over and global warming was back with a vengeance?
Thanks!!

Robert of Ottawa

RMB Anyone who dives in the Great Lakes can confirm the heating effect of the Sun on bodies of water, as the thermocline deepens and rises with the seasons, with a 2-3 month lag. And it is a substantial change, 70-90 feet in Lake Ontario. Rather like land air temperatures peaking around 3 PM local time.

RMB

You are missing the point. The sun’s rays penetrate the surface of the oceans every day and I’m sure the great lakes are no exception. What you can not do on this planet is heat the atmosphere and have that heat transfer by convection through the ocean’s surface. Surface tension stops it. Thats why people like Trenberth can’t find their heat and its a travesty that they can’t.
Radiation penetrates, heat by convection blocked. For this reason no additional can enter the ocean, only the sun’s rays therefore AGW simply does not exist.

RMB said “What you can not do on this planet is heat the atmosphere and have that heat transfer by convection through the ocean’s surface.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
“Convection can be demonstrated by placing a heat source (e.g. a Bunsen burner) at the side of a glass full of a liquid, and observing the changes in temperature in the glass caused by the warmer fluid moving into cooler areas.”
Now replace the glass with the liquid surface. You’ll see that surface tension is not an effective insulator for convective heat transfer.

RMB

A bunsen burner is a flame and a flame radiates heat, you are still missing the point. The heat produced by a heat gun is produced by a coil deep in the gun and no radiation comes from the nozzle. That is the equivalent super heated atmosphere. Now I’m 73 and I can tell when water is heating and when not and believe me that gas does not heat water. Don’t argue try it, you’ll love it.

If you viewed your heat gun with an infrared camera, what would you expect to see?

RMB

I cannot heat the water in my bucket using a heat gun have a nice day.

Robert of Ottawa

Ben Wilson, there is no pause – get with the program! Or do you want your research grant terminated?

Pamela Gray

The link is to the NOAA study on cloud forcing along the East Pacific equatorial region and compares fall and spring data.
“Estimates of cloud forcing of surface radiation in the visible and infrared (IR) are presented. In
the IR, cloud forcing strongly correlates with cloud fraction and IR cloud forcing shows
significant seasonal variability. In the solar band, less variability in seasonal cloud forcing was
seen. From the observations, it is determined that clouds in the eastern equatorial Pacific tend to
cool the surface by about 40 Wm-2 in both seasons.
The spring net heat flux is nearly symmetrical about the equator with a maximum (175 Wm-2) at
the equator decreasing to about 100 Wm-2 at 10N and 8S. The equatorial maximum is associated
with lower turbulent fluxes and modestly lower cloudiness at the equator. In the fall, the
maximum net heat flux (180 Wm-2) is at 2S and the minimum (essentially zero) is at 6N. Much of
the fall net heat flux asymmetry is caused by cloud radiative forcing.”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/hare2753/hare2753.pdf
That’s quite a bit of difference just between Spring and Fall! Now add the atmospheric cloud conditions present under El Nino/La Nina and all the inbetween El Nado’s and La Nada’s!
My preamble is to once again note that El Nino’s deplete our ocean store of heat and we don’t get that heat back! It is lost to the land and atmosphere. The more El Nino’s we have (and the fewer La Nina’s), the more heat we lose!

MikeUK

The BBC radio 4 “science” programme has just repeated the nonsense about the “missing” heat hiding in the ocean, “and it will eventually emerge in the next El Nino” to end this horrible hiatus.

NeedleFactory

I am having trouble finding the data source used by Viscount Moncton here, although I did find it a month or two ago thanks to a comment. IIRC, it is downloadable from somewhere in http://www.remss.com/
Can someone provide the URL?

AndyL says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:51 am
“Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends”
You rely on the advice of a man who can’t even do statistical analysis using Excel?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m no fan of Jones, but I doubt he was doing statistical analysis in Excel. He was more likely using very high end tools for stats analysis, but these tools are notorious for their weak graphing capability. So what a lot of researchers do is use a high end tool for the analysis, and then suck the results into Excel for a nice pretty graph. I expect it was this last step that Jones needed help with.

PJ Clarke.

“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.”
Try the 15 years ending 2006: 2.7C/century in the RSS data. And the CET data from the 1690s is useless for this purpose, it was rounded to the nearest 0.5C, used some indoor readings, and data from the Netherlands, as I’ve pointed out at least twice before….

Pretty diagrams. Anyone know who did them?
[See the text from the author. .mod]

NeedleFactory says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:32 am
I am having trouble finding the data source used by Viscount Moncton here
You can either go here:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
Or here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss/from:1979

Willis Eschenbach

Christopher, thank you for your continuing pounding of this most important drum. I am continually surprised at how few people even today are unaware that the temperatures have gone flat, so your work in this regard is most important and appreciated.
All the best,
w.

david dohbro

thanks for the monthly update Christopher.
Here are the slopes (simple linear regressions), r-square values, and p-value (spearman rank) for the following time frames
last 5 yrs: -0.041x, R2=0.134, p=0.006
last 10 yrs: -0.001x, R2=0.001, p=0.618
last 15 yrs: 0.002x, R2=0.002, p=0.683
last 20 yrs: 0.004x, R2=0.017, p=0.003
since 1998 (el nino) peak: -0.001x, R2=0.002, p=0.550
entire dataset (1979-now): 0.012x, R2=0.351, p<0.001
We can therefore state that RSS' measured global temperatures (anomalies) have :
1) statistically significantly decreased over the past 5 yrs,
2) have statistically neither decreased nor increased (remained flat) over the past 10, and 15 yrs,
3) have statistically significantly increased over the past 20yrs and since 1979
These results are in line with your observation of no-warming over the past 17yrs and 10 months.

Bruce Cobb

Damn Mother Nature. She must be in the pay of “Big Oil”.

Resourceguy

Make that 20 years and one month when Hillary is taking the oath after completing the purchase of the office with a record run of $500 billion from speaker events and untold numbers of promises issued.

Beta Blocker

A few weeks ago over on The Blackboard, JD Ohio asked Zeke Hausfather a question about the width of the climate model confidence intervals, the gist of JD’s question being that how can these data plots of models versus observations tell us anything useful when the confidence intervals of the model outputs are so wide?
A corollary question might be applied to our confidence in the accuracy of the historical temperature record. Does it matter one whit what the historical temperature record indicates if the model confidence intervals are so wide they can cover virtually any reasonably possible temperature trend, up or down, which occurs over periods of up to thirty years?
In response to JD Ohio’s question, Zeke presented a graphical plot which looks like this.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0214_Fig3_ZH.jpg
Zeke’s response to JD Ohio’s question could be summarized as “The jury is still out on whether or not observed temperatures are outside of model predictions.”
Let’s play a game with Zeke’s plot of model outputs versus temperature observation data to see what kind of communication strategy AGW alarmists might use in claiming that temperature observations are consistent with the climate models, and therefore dangerous global warming has not stopped.
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GMT/Observations-Versus-Models-Game-Theory-0214_Fig3_ZH-BB_zps782b0982.png~original
The above graphic is a modification of Zeke’s original to extend the model period to 2030. It shows a “what-if scenario” hypothetical trend line of temperature peaks which occur between 1998 and 2030. The trend line of peaks is +0.03 C per decade, and the hypothetical scenario calls for new peaks to occur approximately every four years.
Why choose a trend of temperature peaks for this hypothetical scenario? And why start at 1998?
Fifteen years ago we heard that 1998 was the hottest year on record, and then as time went on, we heard that 2012 was the hottest year on record. Let’s assume that GMT trends somewhat upward between 2014 and 2030. If that’s what actually happens, we will be hearing that “20xx was the hottest year on record” some number of times before 2030 arrives.
According to Zeke’s original plot, 1998 is a peak temperature year and is near the upper boundary of the model confidence interval for that year. A trend of peaks could remain essentially flat for a period of 32 years before touching the lower bound of the model confidence interval in about the year 2030.
In this way, the claim could be made, based on these very wide confidence intervals, that “temperature observations remain consistent with the climate models” even though temperature trends for the peaks — that is to say, “the hottest years on record” according to this hypothetical scenario — were essentially flat for all practical purposes throughout those 32 years.
In response to my post on that Blackboard thread, Jeff Id made some important observations concerning trends of observed temperatures versus point measurements of observed temperatures:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/#comment-130676
My reply followed:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/#comment-130679
What it all boils down to is this: if at any point in the near to mid-term future, a peak temperature year lies anywhere inside the model confidence interval boundaries, alarmists will ignore the actual trends and will claim that global warming continues apace per model predictions.

Good work. I like to see the longer term graph included with the 0.34 degree increase per quarter century as that is the most likely way that alarmists will respond – by pointing out that the longer term, there is 0.34 degree C of warming. Pointing out that this rate of warming is still below the IPCC estimate addresses those criticisms before they start.
About the current development of El Nino, it is not developing like a super El Nino of 1997. It looks more typical – like an average El Nino. Bob Tisdale also questioned whether the El Nino is dying. The Nino temperature anomaly: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt5.gif does not yet show any unusual strength. The zonal wind changes are not that large in magnitude. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt4.gif

Dave Dardinger

I am continually surprised at how few people even today are unaware that the temperatures have gone flat

I think you meant either “how many are unaware” or “how few are aware”

Matthew R Marler

Thank you again. I look forward to the updates.
he 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.
What are those two functionally identical equations?

more soylent green!

RMB says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:34 am
There can never be global warming in addition to the heat created by the sun’s rays entering the ocean. “Heat” in the atmosphere cannot pass into the ocean because it is totally blocked by surface tension. If you believe this to be incorrect try heating water through its surface by convection not radiation. A bucket of water and a heat gun will do the trick.

I await the results of this experiment.
By corollary, are you also saying that if I run a cold bath and leave it for several days, it won’t attain [room] temperature?

RMB

The bath will reach room temperature because the heat will pass through the bath itself. The heat will not pass through the surface because of surface tension. If you are surprised how do you think I feel. Its taken 73yrs for me to learn this. One heatgun and one bucket of water try it for yourself.

NeedleFactory
Gary Pearse

Christopher, you are teasing the lions here. I have to believe they are pouring over the radiometer calculations to see how they can adjust these. When they do, there will be a major adjustment for…well the last 18 yrs.

Hi all,
Well, Pachamama has been with us skeptics for almost two decades, but this might change in the future, and essentially the thing should be the same: we have no idea of the value of sensitivity, among other crucial factors, because we’re not able to calculate many of them in advance, and therefore Climatology is unable to predict the future of the climate… nothing happens, be humble, exactly the same happens to the Geology (and the Economy, for the matter) and it’s assumed with sportsmanship… 😉
Cheers!

Cheshirered

Good work, Squire.

david dohbro

RMB “There can never be global warming in addition to the heat created by the sun’s rays entering the ocean. “Heat” in the atmosphere cannot pass into the ocean because it is totally blocked by surface tension. If you believe this to be incorrect try heating water through its surface by convection not radiation. A bucket of water and a heat gun will do the trick.”
I always tell people who have a bathroom with a bathtub at home to do the following experiment at home:
Materials needed: one bathroom with bathtub, one air thermometer, at least one water-proof thermometer.
1) place the air thermometer in your bathroom and write down the thermometer’s temperature reading
2) fill your bath tub with 100F water, leave the room afterwards, close the door, and wait for 30min.
3) get back into the bathroom, close the door, and read the thermometer’s temperature again.
You will see that the air temperature in the bathroom has gone up substantially (likely from say ~68F to ~80F, depending bathroom size and bathtub size)
4) drain the bath tub, air the bathroom till the air thermometer is back to when we originally started this experiment (~68F in this case)
5) no fill the bathtub with water of around the same temperature as the air in the bathroom (~68F)
6) Turn on the heater in your bathroom (if you don’t have one, use a space heater but be careful with water…), warm the air in the room to 100F (if possible) or at least to as high as you can, and wait for 30min.
7) now measure, using the 2nd (water-proof) thermometer, the surface-water temperature, as well as half-way and at the bottom of the bath tub.
You will see that the surface of the water in the bathtub has only warmed slightly and that no warming has occurred of the water at depth.
It’s a simple way to show people how warming occurs, that the heat-capacity of water is much larger than that of air, and that warm air barely warms water; rather the other way around.

david dohbro says:
July 3, 2014 at 10:00 am
We can therefore state that RSS’ measured global temperatures (anomalies) have :
3) have statistically significantly increased over the past 20yrs

What is your source of information?
This source says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Since June, 1989, the trend is 0.117 ±0.120 °C/decade (2σ)
And http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D
says since November 1992:
CI from -0.016 to 1.857
Both dates are over 21 years.

more soylent green!

@david dohbro says: July 3, 2014 at 11:24 am
Yes, but does that have anything to do with surface tension? I’m sure it doesn’t, as the post you responded to claims.

tty

RACookPE1978 says:
“Do the satellites record the measured regional temperature anomalies? That is, do we know the historic measured Arctic and Antarctic troposphere anomalies since 1979?”
Yes. Look at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Rather far to the right you will find 6 columns labeled “NoPol Land Ocean SoPol Land Ocean “, they contain the monthly anomalies for the northern and southern polar areas, total, land only and ocean only respectively. The trend for the southern polar area is incidentally 0.00 degrees.

george e. smith

Struth ! for a while there Christopher, it was looking like you got your paws, on a pause in your pause; but evidently the ticker is working again.
I was trying to see if there was a necessary and sufficient condition for the RSS recent, to automatically extend the pause.
If we assume that prior to the starting date of the pause, the global temperature anomaly (a la RSS), was rising out of the coldrums, then it would seem to me that the recent RSS, only has to fall from last month, and at least one month extension is guaranteed; maybe more.
But the graphs, don’t seem to do either of those things.
So evidently your trend algorithm, is not as simple as that.
But good to know the habit is continuing.
g

Non Nomen

Thanks for rubbing it in once again to the warmistas. The time will come that your constant dripping will turn into a tsunami. And the poor(?) warmistas will find that the safe places are already taken by those who were willing and able to read and understand the writing…

Beta Blocker says:
…why start at 1998?
It was Dr Phil Jones who originally used 1997 as the benchmark year to determine if there was global warming or not. In 1999 Jones was asked if there had really been no global warming for two years [“Yes, but only just”]. He added that it would require 15 years of no global warming to say that global warming had indeed stopped.
No doubt Dr Jones regrets that now. Fifteen years probably seemed like a safe bet at the time. Fast forward to 2012, and naturally skeptics reminded Jones of his statement. Now it is 17+ years of no global warming.
So it was über-Warmist Phil Jones himself who said we must begin at 1997. The Warmists do not like it. But just think about the screaming we would be subjected to if global warming had resumed.

ferdberple

AlecM says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:04 am
CO2-AGW is near zero,offset by systemic reduction of atmospheric humidity as [CO2] rises.
The reason why will emerge in due course!
==============
partial pressure gas law. otherwise atmospheric pressure would increase as CO2 is added, due to increase in partial pressure of CO2. Increased air pressure increases the energy required to evaporate water, reducing humidity, which reduces that partial pressure of H2O, maintaining constant atmospheric pressure.

“Willis Eschenbach says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:59 am
Christopher, thank you for your continuing pounding of this most important drum. I am continually surprised at how few people even today are unaware that the temperatures have gone flat, so your work in this regard is most important and appreciated.”
except they havent gone flat.
1. RSS is not temperatures. RSS measures brightness at the sensor. Then a microwave
radiative transfer model is applied to the data to create an estimate of the temperature.
Its not data, its the output of a model.
2. RSS is a complilation of various platforms stitched together by making various adjustments.
Its not raw data, its adjusted and fiddled with. No errors of prediction due to adustment
are propogated in this process of adjustment, fiddling, tweaking.
3. If one chooses to model these “temperatures” with a linear model, one is assuming
that the underlying data generating model is linear. Given this assumption ( which is non
physical) then one can calculate a trend for that model. The trend is for the model, not the data.
4. The trend in the linear model is actually a distribution of values, so you need to look at
the entire distribution.
Bottom line, temperatures, actual temperatures have not gone “flat” they are what they are.
IF, you choose to accept the RSS estimates as “data”, IF you decide to model this data with
a straight line, IF you calculate the trend term for that model, then you can say that the trend
in this model of modelled RSS data has a central value close to zero.
Just to be exact about all the analytical choices one must make and defend.

SDK

Ah, those cherries are mightily tasty…
UAH: Trend 1999 – 2014 = +1.5 C / century. So… GW stopped 17 years ago, but resumed a year later?

“Murray says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:06 am
The fastest warming rate since 1976 seems to be based on surface instrument temperature, and is probably overstated by more than 50% due to warming biases in the surface instrument records..”
Well, if the surface record has 50% false warming that would move the global average by 15%

richard verney

I haven’t read all the comments, so perhaps this has already been raised before.
According to the RSS data, how long was the warming?
Is the duration of the ‘pause’ in warming, approximately as long as the period when there was warming?
What does that tell us about climate sensitivity to CO2?
What does it say about the claims that even if we were to halt CO2 emissions, warming is already locked into the system due to the 1980s ‘high’ levels of CO2 in the atmoshere?
It will all become very interesting should there be some cooling in the coming years.