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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

197 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AndyL
July 3, 2014 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?

RACookPE1978
Editor
July 3, 2014 7:57 am

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
July 3, 2014 8:03 am

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
July 3, 2014 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!

Murray
July 3, 2014 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.. 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

July 3, 2014 8:12 am

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

Latitude
July 3, 2014 8:13 am

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.
July 3, 2014 8:15 am

Lovely.

Eliza
July 3, 2014 8:31 am

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
July 3, 2014 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.
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.

jlurtz
July 3, 2014 9:00 am

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].

July 3, 2014 9:11 am

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!

July 3, 2014 9:12 am

RMB – couldn’t have said it better myself!

RMB
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 8, 2014 8:48 am

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

Martin
July 3, 2014 9:14 am

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
July 3, 2014 9:15 am

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
July 3, 2014 9:19 am

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
July 3, 2014 9:21 am

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
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
July 8, 2014 8:45 am

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.

Reply to  RMB
July 8, 2014 3:43 pm

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
Reply to  katatetorihanzo
July 9, 2014 8:40 am

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.

Reply to  RMB
July 10, 2014 7:29 pm

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

RMB
Reply to  katatetorihanzo
July 11, 2014 8:54 am

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

Robert of Ottawa
July 3, 2014 9:23 am

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

Pamela Gray
July 3, 2014 9:26 am

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
July 3, 2014 9:31 am

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
July 3, 2014 9:32 am

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?

July 3, 2014 9:36 am

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.
July 3, 2014 9:39 am

“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….

July 3, 2014 9:43 am

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

July 3, 2014 9:58 am

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

1 2 3 7