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.
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).
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).
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paul Seligman says (emphasis mine):
July 3, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Again, interesting, but again so far the part in bold is just anecdote, not fact. Here’s a fact, from Migration of the barnacle goose from Svalbard to Scotland:

Contrary to your claim, there’s lots of places for geese to “change their habits and make a shorter journey”.
Facts differ from anecdotes in a simple way. They have actual evidence, such as I’ve posted above, to back them up. Your claim about only open water between Scotland and Svalbard is an anecdote. My map is factual.
Now, on to the white-footed goose. Numbers have indeed been decreasing in Britain. However, there’s a curious part to that.
In general, England and Europe warmed from 1985 – 1999, and then has been generally level or only slightly warming since then.
But the numbers of the decline go the other way. Ready for some more facts about the White Fronted Goose?
Why are those facts rather than anecdotes? Because they are cited and referenced, first to their intermediate source, then to the underlying source.
And why is the trend going the wrong way? Because the drop in goose population per year has been greater from 2000 to 2010 than it was from 1985 to 2000, but temperatures have not been increasing.
My own feeling from reading that link is that we’re looking a variation in a very small population, which could have a lot of causes. This is borne out by looking at the underlying SUKB (State of the UK Birds) source linked to above. It shows the variations in what they call “wintering waterbirds”, a group of 29 different species. Regarding these species, the SUKB 2013 says (emphasis mine:
Note that this is the exact opposite of your claim, which was that warmer winters mean LESS wintering waterbirds.
On page 38 of that reference, there is a list of the population changes for the 29 species that they recognize as “wintering waterbirds”, including the two species you mention above as decreasing in population. And indeed, the SUKB agrees with you that those two species have decreased in population since 1985 to 2010.
However, there are only 7 species which decreased from 1985 to 2000, which is a decrease in the populations of 24% of the wintering waterbird species.
But from 2000-2010, 59% of the wintering waterbird species declined, a much larger fraction of the totals.
Now, the temperature of Europe rose from 1985 to 2000, Since then, however, the temperature of Europe has dropped. Here’s France, for example …
According to your theory, the numbers of British waterbirds should have gone down as the continent warmed from 1985-2000, and they should have gone up as cold weather hit the continent since 2000
But the actual observations of the SUKB beg to differ. It says the exact opposite, that wintering waterbirds go up with warmth and down with cold.
I hope that you’re starting to see the difference between facts and anecdotes …
Now I’m not trying to diss your knowledge of the situation of UK birds, Paul, and I like your enthusiasm. And I’m the first to say that this morning, I couldn’t have told you one single thing about either the White-Fronted Goose or “wintering waterbirds” in England.
However, at this point I know enough to say that your claims are somewhat overblown, and indeed, perhaps even backwards.
Accordingly, I encourage you to do what I do—do your homework before you post, so that you can post facts rather than anecdotes, and avoid having some jerk like me coming along to say no, you’re wrong …
My best to you.
Re: Werner Brozek.
The skepticalscience.com trend analyzer doesn’t provide a p-value for the trend, i.e. slope. It only provides a confidence interval; in this case plotted as a ‘two sigma’ (2σ) confidence interval. What this means is, only, that the actual trend is likely to lie within this region approximately 95% of the time. It doesn’t tell us if the average trend (i.e. slope) is statistically significant different from 0.
The spearman rank (used as a measure of correlation between two two sets of data), however, does provide use with a p-value and if the slope is statistically signficant different from 0.
That said, in the file I provided I confirmed that the slope calculated by skepticalsience.com for the 1989.5 to 2014.5 timeframe is correct AND that it is statistically significant (different from 0).
In summary,
1) confidence intervals are not the same as p-values for statistical trend analyses,
2) skepticalscience.com and my analysis are not contradicting, both are right and confirm eachother
3) the warming IS statistically significant over the last 20 years.
Another, more appropriate I would say, way to determine if a slope is statistically signficant (different from 0) is to do a t-test for the slope (beta) term. However, this type of analysis is rather tedious, but can be done in Excel.
I hope this clarifies and helps!
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm
If global warming acts against the cooling period that should be happening around now, it might have some beneficial results as far as some of mankind is concerned. But I wouldn’t count on it.
=======================================================================
Do you think that mile high ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere would be better for mankind than several degrees of warming?
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“”Seems unlikely that that trend would continue for 17 years after an alleged pause,…””
=================================================================
I would think that it would be very likely that the trend would continue until the incentive for the migration reversed itself. The 17+ years of the pause still leaves global temps in an elevated condition.
david dohbro says:
July 3, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Re: Werner Brozek.
You should probably take this up with Nick Stokes as soon as my next article appears since I now use his methods which also show that RSS can indeed have a slope of zero over the past 20 years at the 95% level.
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm
and
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 3, 2014 at 6:19 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks to both of you. I have seen claims like the one Mr Seligman made and responses like the one Mr. Eschenbach made time after time. Like the missing Caribou herd that went to a different location, like the Polar Bears that don’t pay attention to lines on the maps we make, like the Emperor Penguin issue noted here a while back. Undoubtedly there are some shrinking populations. But I have been in the outdoors most of my life, and based on what I see and read, most animals are highly adaptable. Deer are becoming a nuisance where I live, there are too many, as a result there are more cougars, wolves and other predators. Of course, a hard winter will cause havoc, but I see more birds and animals than ever as humans stop hunting larger game. The Canada Goose is a huge nuisance and finds warm places in cities to over-winter and then nest on the sidewalks come spring. Coyotes live in our major cities along with foxes, racoons, skunks and a host of others. The edges of our forest disturbances are rife with life. Humans have large impacts but a lot of life adapts a lot more quickly to what we have done than many scholars realize.
There are lots of references, but lets use a British one. The comments are more interesting than the article:
http://io9.com/5831917/animals-are-adapting-more-rapidly-to-climate-change-than-humans
“La plus la change, la plus la meme chose”.
Re: Werner Brozek. Of course a [trendline] can have a slope of 0 with a 95% confidence interval. Please do not confuse a CI for a P-value. Those are 2 very different things. Basic statistic. For example, what if you use 1 sigma (66% CI) or 3 sigma (99% CI)? The CIs change, but not your P-value of the correlation.
[Remember: Write your technical/statistical replies not only for a fellow statistician, but for the other readers. Avoid jargon-specific abbreviations that others will not recognize.
CI = Confidence Interval .mod]
“””””…..
Werner Brozek says:
July 3, 2014 at 3:44 pm
george e. smith says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:40 am
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.
Louis says:
July 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again”
—
Can someone explain why the pause lengthened again when the graph shows June temperature anomalies higher than May’s?
You are both making an excellent observation and the same answer could more or less be given for both. For George, it is not whether the anomaly goes up or down that is important, but how the new anomaly compares to the zero line. …..””””””
Hey Werner. Right now it is not immediately obvious to me; sometimes greyness density gets in the way of cognition.
But thanx for pointing me in a very precisely defined direction (place). I’m sure it will hit me right between the eyes; maybe like 3 AM tomorrow, it will wake me up.
I’ll chew on it, and it will come to me. I knew there must be a simple explanation, because Lord Monckton, is pretty nitpicky in crossing his eyes and dotting his tees, so he doesn’t leave a lot of errors scattered around..
But nice to know the pause is refreshed for another month.
Thanks Werner.
g
It would seem that the good lord really puts a twist in your shorts.
Why is that? (rhetorical)
“””””…..James Abbott says:
July 3, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says
“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.”
And in saying that torpedoes his own position. If he is happy to use the starting point for his pause in 1997, just prior to a massive El Nino, he cannot complain if a large El Nino develops in the coming months, raising temperatures that then ruins his pause……”””””
Well James, you just don’t seem to understand the algorithm.
Christopher DOES NOT just use that month in 1997 as the start of his pause interval.
The interval by definition, ENDS with the current, most recent number from RSS (in this case).
That is the moving FIXED point; today’s value.
The VARIABLE moving point is the earliest month, for which the trend between then and now, is statistically zero, as calculated by standard stat maths.
Absolutely no mystery to it at all. The START month, is NOT fixed. It is THE variable, chosen by the algorithm.
1) The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
2) Confirmation bias does not become truth when it is shared.
3) etc.
From Beta blocker.
“””””…..CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. It is not going to hang around Central England forever once it is released. Same holds for everywhere else on earth……”””””
I don’t know why people keep on reciting this false assumption.
Every year, the CO2 abundance at Mauna Loa exhibits a 6 ppm (roughly) peak to peak cyclic variation, rising over about seven months, and falling over the next five months.
But at the North Pole, that cyclic variation is more like 18-20 ppm peak to peak, while at the South Pole, it is about -1 ppm peak to peak (180 degrees out of phase with ML.)
That is NOT my idea of a well mixed situation. The amount of CO2 can obviously change very fast in the atmosphere; 18-20 ppm in 5 months. So it should be able to propagate to the South Pole, if the atmosphere were indeed well mixed. It isn’t well mixed at all, and it doesn’t have any 200 year residence time. It comes and goes just like water vapor, just not as quickly; and the supposed 110 ppm surplus over the 280 ppm ideal equilibrium value, would be gone in less than five years, if the present cause of the slow rise, were to reverse.
Lord Monckton, October 2009:
“If you choose your start-point and your end-points carefully enough you can make it look as though any trend you want is happening.”
Indeed you can:
GISTEMP 1970 – 2013 = 1.7 C / century = Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of 2.5 C.
UAH 1992 – 2013 = 2.0 C / century = ECS of 3.0 C.
UAH 1999 – 2013 = 1.5 C / century = ECS of 2.2 C.
I’m not an “alarmist” or a “warmist” or whatever other terms reserved for me. More of a lukewarmer perhaps. But I do also believe that the paleoclimate data shows that a Climate Sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.0 (as per the IPCC) is certainly not implausible. Just really don’t understand the obsessive need to pick a strong El Nino year as the starting-point, as it proves absolutely nothing. Picking Pinatubo (1992) would be equally wrong.
Would it not be fairer to take a full ENSO (pseudo) cycle into account instead of just the preponderance for La Ninas since 2000? Like perhaps 1970 – 2013? Incidentally, this will land you smack dab in the middle of the IPCC range (2.5 C).
In answer to SDK, as the head posting records, the fastest supra-decadal warming in the terrestrial record since 1850 was equivalent to 2 K/century, and it occurred during the 33 years 1974-2006. However, one cannot derive climate sensitivities directly from so short (and cherry-picked) a temperature record. The correct cycle to use is the PDO (subject to the warning from Roe, 2009, that it is neither decadal nor an oscillation, though it is in the Pacific). That is an approximately 60-year cycle, with 30 years’ cooling followed by 30 years’ warming. That conveniently takes us back to about 1950, the date from which the IPCC dates Man’s significant influence on climate. The warming rate since then, on the HadCRUT4 dataset favored by the IPCC on the ground that it goes back to 1850, is 0.7 K, equivalent to 1.1 K/century, suggesting a climate sensitivity of about the same order (though for many reasons even 60 years is too short for safety).
What we can say with near-certainty is that the models that are saying climate sensitivity falls on 3 [1.5, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling predicted in 1990 that global warming since then would have occurred by now at exactly twice the rate that has been observed since. That suggests the models are running hot. It also suggests, interestingly, that one must divide climate sensitivity not just by 2 but by at least 3, because the feedback sum must be considerably less than the models had been told to assume. Indeed, the IPCC has reduced the feedback sum from 1.91 W/m2/K in 2007 to 1.5 W/m2/K now, implying on its own basis that climate sensitivity should fall from the 3.2 K in the CMIP5 models to 2.2 K. Yet the IPCC, instead of announcing this fact, has said it will no longer produce a best estimate of climate sensitivity (which was the whole point of its previous reports). And, bizarrely, it has increased both bounds of the model-projected climate-sensitivity interval from [2.0, 4.5] K in the CMIP3 ensemble reported in Box 10.2 of IPCC (2007) to [2.1, 4.7] K now. On the math, there is no justification whatsoever for this increase.
Frankly, the case against the IPCC and its bizarre approach is mounting steadily. On any rational view, no one would do anything about trying to make global warming go away at present. The rational policy would be to wait and see. The significance of the failure of the world to warm for a decade and a half on most measures and two decades on the RSS measure is that, contrary to what we are told, there is no hurry.
In answer to George E. Smith, CO2 is regarded as a “well-mixed gas” because at all latitudes and altitudes its variance is around 5% either side of the mean. Japanese satellite measurements reproduced in Salby’s research show this quite well, and demonstrate that the higher concentrations of CO2 (in the tropics, with a few hot-spots elsewhere) are uncorrelated with the industrial output of CO2. Indeed, the highest CO2 concentation in the world is in the Taklamakan Desert, for reasons I have insufficient knowledge to explain. The latitudinal variation in the amplitude of the seasonal fluctuation from barely detectable at the South Pole to maximal at the North Pole is owing to the hemispherically-asymmetric distribution of the great land masses. The latitudinal variation can be used as a method of calibrating the accuracy of the various stations that monitor atmospheric CO2 concentration, demonstrating that they are well-calibrated and that the increase in CO2 is being correctly measured.
And I should thank George E. Smith for his kindness in explaining for those who have not yet understood it the basis for determining the start-date of the RSS temperature-trend graph, which now long predates the ENSO-driven local maximum in 1998 – though in fairness that very large spike, occurring relatively early in the period of study, does have some influence in prolonging the Pause.
To those who have queried the source of the RSS monthly anomaly data on which Fig. 1 in the head posting is based, I respond that the URL is plainly marked on the graph itself. The algorithm that draws the graphs has been trained to detect whether only a single dataset is being used and, if so, it will automatically display the URL of the location from which it is getting the data.
SDK:
In your post at July 4, 2014 at 12:52 am you say
Really? Then why does your post follow that with this misleading nonsense which has been repudiated multiple times including in this thread.
As example of a correction to your (deliberate?) error I refer you to the post in this thread of george e. smith at July 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm which includes this
And I add to his correction of the disinformation from James Abbott which has now been repeated by you, a falsehood is not converted to a truth by accompaniment of an assertion that its presenter is not a warmunist.
Richard
BobG is quite right that the discrepancy between prediction and reality since 1990 is telling. There has been one-third of a Celsius degree of warming since then, and the prediction was twice that: two-thirds.
SDK says:
July 4, 2014 at 12:52 am
I’m not an “alarmist” or a “warmist” or whatever other terms reserved for me. More of a lukewarmer perhaps. But I do also believe that the paleoclimate data shows that a Climate Sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.0 (as per the IPCC) is certainly not implausible. Just really don’t understand the obsessive need to pick a strong El Nino year as the starting-point, as it proves absolutely nothing. Picking Pinatubo (1992) would be equally wrong.
================================
Unless I am missing something, you’re looking at it the wrong way round. As was pointed out by george e smith in response to a post from James Abbott (July 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm), the start point is NOW and the timescale goes backwards. So there is no cherry-picking involved.
As Viscount M. of B helpfully points out “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.”
PS To all citizens of the USA, Happy Independence Day!
Aha! Beaten to the punch by the redoubtable Richard S Courtney! (More eloquently too btw.)
F. Ross says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Village Idiot says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm
“More of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley … etc.”
It would seem that the good lord really puts a twist in your shorts.
Why is that? (rhetorical)
___________________________________
Why does he call himself Village Idiot? (rhethorical)
Looks like a pulse of cold upwelling off the Peru coast, not very el-Nino-like.
Go long on anchovies.
Go short on AGW.
@Willis Eschenbach says:July 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm – I don;t have time to enter into any more discussionhere, but thanks for your comments which were made in a friendly and constructive way and which I’ll take into account ( I *try* to avoid confirmation bias…. except when something is so obviously untrue that it’s a waste of time to consider). It simply isn’t possible to quote all the considerable scientific evidence on bird’s average date of laying eggs in a comment (try Googling ‘Effects of climate change on Birds’ for book of same name summarising various studies), or the many examples of lepidotera responding to warming.
=====================================================
James Abbott says: July 3, 2014 at 3:33 pm ” ……. And in saying that torpedoes his own position. If he [Monckton] is happy to use the starting point for his pause in 1997, just prior to a massive El Nino, he cannot complain if a large El Nino develops in the coming months, raising temperatures that then ruins his pause. And if it does, it will not just be “temporary warming”. Clearly without the 1998 El Nino, his graph would not be flat, it would show positive warming. Similarly if a new El Nino produces a positive warming trend over his 1997 to present time frame, using the same analysis, then he has to accept it. Unless of course he then chooses a different time frame to show a flat trend.”
=====================================================
A question for James Abott: referring to the graph presented below which was generated by Zeke Hausfather in February 2014, are observations of actual temperatures consistent with the estimates of the climate models?
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0214_Fig3_ZH.jpg