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
richardscourtney
July 4, 2014 6:32 am

Paul Seligman:
You conclude your post at July 4, 2014 at 4:40 am with

… the many examples of lepidotera responding to warming.

I think you would find it useful to read this WUWT article and the linked paper it discusses. The article begins saying

From the University of Michigan and the department of Mothra studies, comes this big let down. Even though moths are supposedly affected by climate change, “90 percent of them were either stable or increasing” while the climate where they lived …

Richard

angech
July 4, 2014 6:37 am

The reason the satellite records are staying flat for 17 years is that Nick cannot get Roy to do TOBS adjustments on the data. This will change when Roy retires and the new appointee can adjust the RSS sensor brightness to the right reading. The satellite is obviously wrong as it does not match the GHCN results and as it is the only site different it must have a faulty sensor causing a breakpoint. Zeke can adjust this result and the Nick can add in a TOBS adjustment as well as since the record was faulty the adjusted reading was obviously taken at the wrong time.
For those with no sense of humour please point out that readings are done all round the clock and the temperatures are not at sea surface level from RSS etc but these little difficulties can be ironed out as well. After all as Steven so eloquently put it, no one is using real data for HISTORICAL records, are they?

rogerknights
July 4, 2014 7:51 am

david dohbro says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:24 am
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)

Hence, in the winter, when one steps out of a warm bath, one should wait a couple of hours before pulling the plug. That way the water’s heat contributes to warming the home rather than going down the drain. Energy is saved.

July 4, 2014 8:21 am

In answer to Mr Abbott, if the el Nino continues to build it will show a warming trend for a short time, but that will be canceled by the subsequent la Nina, leaving a net zero trend. It is only if a strong enough greenhouse forcing overwhelms the declining solar activity that the trend is likely to rise at all in the medium term.

Pamela Gray
July 4, 2014 9:26 am

Good Lord, with regard to your comment on July4, 2014 at 8:21 AM, not necessarily. La Nina’s do not always cancel El Nino’s. They are not the reverse of each other in terms of equal in, equal out. And it is not necessarily true that La Nina’s follow El Nino’s. So it is better to say, “If there is a following La Nina that recharges what was lost and then that is followed by an El Nino that discharges what was absorbed, etc.”
I would suggest that it is better to say the trend likely will not change anytime soon owing to the nature of ordinary least squares and the length of your data string. The OLS statistical trend algorithm is somewhat susceptible to outlying data but is also relatively stable as a metric looking forward. I would hazard a guess that the trend will continue to be near or exactly 0 for the next 6 months to a year. Primarily because of what I know about that particular statistical algorithm.

phlogiston
July 4, 2014 10:09 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 4, 2014 at 8:21 am
In answer to Mr Abbott, if the el Nino continues to build it will show a warming trend for a short time, but that will be canceled by the subsequent la Nina, leaving a net zero trend. It is only if a strong enough greenhouse forcing overwhelms the declining solar activity that the trend is likely to rise at all in the medium term.
The current “el Nino” has weakened significantly over the last couple of months. The following La Nina could come sooner than expected.

SteveT
July 4, 2014 10:42 am

The explanations for the beginning period of Lord Monckton’s analysis are obviously too confusing for persons who are already taken in by the global warming scam. All that fixed variable and moving fixed start date have clearly done people’s heads in. An easier way to look at it is to ask How long is it since it last snowed? Obviously one would go backwards from the present until you found a snowfall record. Similarly, one goes backwards from now to find the date on which a no statistical warming result is found and it just happens to be 1998.
On another note don’t have a go at poor Village just because of his surname. Somewhere along the line my ancestors obviously fixed reeds as roofing but I haven’t been able to find an example in my family tree. His ancestors may have similarly been way back 🙂
SteveT

rogerknights
July 4, 2014 10:52 am

. . . the many examples of lepidotera responding to warming.

If you have in mind the famous Parmesan (sp?) papers on butterfly migration upslope, etc., search for her name in the search box here to find threads that debunk her claims.

mogur2013
July 4, 2014 11:50 am

Anyone can see the whole satellite record of RSS, HADCRUT, UAH, GISS, etc. data very easily at the wood for trees site. I plotted most of the global datasets from 1979 to present in the following link:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:60/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:60/offset:0.11/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.17/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.28/plot/wti/from:1979/mean:60/offset:0.12
Monckton’s straight RSS trend line is in blue, while the entire RSS trend line is in green. By also plotting four other datasets, you can plainly see that the recent RSS data is suspect. As Roy Spencer states on his site, “the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit…”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
The entire record paints a completely different picture than just the last 214 months of one suspect dataset.

richardscourtney
July 4, 2014 12:01 pm

mogur2013:
Thankyou for providing the plot in your post at July 4, 2014 at 11:50 am which
(a) confirms that RSS does indicate the global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago
and
(b) shows that each of the other major data sets of global average surface temperature (GASTA) also indicates that global warming stopped 15 or more years ago.
Richard

mogur2013
July 4, 2014 2:49 pm
richardscourtney
July 4, 2014 3:01 pm

mogur2013:
At July 4, 2014 at 2:49 pm you ask me

Grin. And what exactly about my plot tells you that global warming stopped 15 or more years ago?

I answer.
Smirk. My knowledge that climastrology uses 95% confidence limits.
None of your linear trends differ from zero at 95% confidence but those similar trends did differ from zero at 95% confidence over the previous 15 years. Hence, discernible global warming stopped at least 15 years ago.
There can be no rational dispute that global warming stopped: the IPCC calls the stop a “pause” because they hope warming will resume.
Richard

July 4, 2014 3:42 pm

It would be better if the Thermageddonites were to admit that global warming is not occurring at present. On the HadCRUT4 dataset preferred by the IPCC, there has been no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties for well over 18 years. As a rule of thumb, unless the endpoints of a trend-line are >0.15 K apart, one cannot tell whether there has been any global warming. This value is derivable from the uncertainty values given in the HadCRUT4 dataset.
There has been a query about whether the RSS data are running cool because the satellite on which they depend, NOAA-15, is suffering orbital degradation. I have sent a note to RSS asking what adjustments they make for orbital degradation, which is a routine problem especially with polar LEO satellites.

mogur2013
July 4, 2014 4:30 pm

correction to above post: [Plot any other series trend line from 1997 to present thru 2000 to present and they all show warming except RSS.]

mogur2013
July 4, 2014 4:47 pm

@Monckton of Brenchley
As Roy Spencer said in the link that I posted above, “Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which [b]they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model[/b], which does not quite match reality.” [my emphasis]
@richardscourtney
Now you have to use error confidence limits to justify your claim that warming has halted, even though every single dataset, save RSS, shows a positive trend in the last 15-18 years? Unless you provide sufficient evidence that all datasets are manipulated for a warming bias, then your claim that all positive trend lines equate to no warming is simply self serving.

mogur2013
July 4, 2014 4:59 pm

My grin comment was not a smirk, btw, I simply enjoy a good argument. And wouldn’t your confidence limits just as easily provide a much increased warming trend from the datasets, as well?

eVince
July 4, 2014 7:25 pm

I wish that Lord Moncton would mention why RSS TLT (Tropical Lower Troposphere tempreaturers) is a good fit for glogal temperatures. Please be informed that I trust Lord Moncton’s motives. However, as a working man, I would be more inclined to share this with my cohorts if I had some explanation of why RSS TLT truly matters. Please be kind enough to make your answer in a form that common people can understand. Thank you. (I don’t believe in this CAGW nonsense, but you fellows must be more open or you will die on the vine.) PS: I can wait until Lord Moncton makes his next monthly pronouncement. The point is to include the common people in the science.

Village Idiot
July 5, 2014 1:21 am

eVince
I wish that Lord Moncton would mention why RSS TLT…. is a good fit for global temperatures…..some explanation of why RSS TLT truly matters”
Me, too. See my comment above. (By the way, make sure you spell the good lord’s name correctly, he and Antony are touchy about that stuff!)

richardscourtney
July 5, 2014 1:53 am

mogur2013:
I am replying to both your posts at July 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm and July 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm.
You say to me

Now you have to use error confidence limits to justify your claim that warming has halted, even though every single dataset, save RSS, shows a positive trend in the last 15-18 years? Unless you provide sufficient evidence that all datasets are manipulated for a warming bias, then your claim that all positive trend lines equate to no warming is simply self serving.

Oh, do try to keep up! Decades ago I provided evidence that all datasets are manipulated for a warming bias, Climategate leaked an email about how my paper concerning this was blocked from publication, and the matter was repeatedly subjected to other cover ups; see thisParliamentary Submission. And please note that the paper had 18 signatories from around the world because the matter was well-known to people who were following such matters back then.
The point is that DISCERNIBLE global warming stopped about 15 years ago according to all data sets. It did. For the previous 15 years there was warming which could be discerned as being more than zero with 95% confidence, and for the most recent 15 years there was not. The global warming stopped.
And you ask

And wouldn’t your confidence limits just as easily provide a much increased warming trend from the datasets, as well?

NO!
Your question demonstrates that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Richard

mogur2013
July 5, 2014 6:00 am

@richardscourtney
I don’t mind an honest disagreement on almost any subject, but I refuse to put up with your snippy condescension. And it simply isn’t my job to be aware of your failed efforts at publication, especially since you seem to think that it somehow bolsters your absurd contention that a dataset that indicates warming and which allows for possibilities that range from no warming to rapid warming should be considered evidence for either extreme.
I am 95% confident that your arrogance is unjustified, since you don’t even seem to understand to the basic scientific principles that 1) similar findings across studies increases the confidence in their means, and certainly does not establish evidence for any conclusion that deviates from that mean. 2) selecting a subrange of an entire dataset that even you admit has a positive overall trend, does not permit the mean of that subset to be ignored in favor of any other possible conclusion, even one that lies within the 95% probability confidence, unless evidence is provided to indicate a bias in that mean, and that bias is in the direction of your presupposition. 3) I discern that you may want to be polite to people with whom you disagree, if you expect anything but disdain in return.

richardscourtney
July 5, 2014 6:13 am

mogur2013:
At July 5, 2014 at 6:00 am you say to me

I don’t mind an honest disagreement on almost any subject, but I refuse to put up with your snippy condescension.

In that case perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how you think I am supposed to address an anonymous and offensive troll whose every post demonstrates complete ignorance of a subject which he/she/they/it has chosen to pontificate about.
Alternatively, you could reflect on why I have afforded you much more respect than you deserve.
Richard

July 5, 2014 7:33 am

Two more months and hiatus reaches the age of majority!

July 5, 2014 10:02 am

“eVince” asks the sort of question which this thread is really for. Why, he asks, is the RSS TLT (“Tropical Lower Troposphere” dataset a respectable measure of global temperature? In fact, TLT stands for “Temperature, Lower Troposphere”, since RSS produces many other types of data from the satellites.
The dataset covers approximately 70 deg. S to 82.5 deg. N: i.e., the overwhelming preponderance of the Earth’s lower troposphere. Because the temperature lapse rate (i.e., the rate at which the temperature becomes cooler with altitude) drops off at a near-linear rate of 6.5 K per km, and because the RSS TLT dataset measures temperature changes rather than absolute temperatures, the fact that the temperature is inferred from an altitude some way above the surface does not materially affect the ability of the dataset to represent changes in surface temperature. Hope this helps. Any questions, please feel free to ask.

Bart
July 5, 2014 10:34 am

mogur2013 says:
July 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Whatever meager positive trend you could find in any of the data sets over the last two decades is much smaller than anything we should be worried about. This is not the global warming they have been looking for.
In fact, every single data set shows a long term trend of about 0.75 degC/century, and that trend was established long before CO2 could have been having any effect. When you remove that natural trend from the data, you find that the data sets are all declining relative to the long term natural trend.
We are in a relative cooling phase which is inconsistent with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and which appears likely to extend into the late 2030’s. Even a couple more years of relative stasis is going to be devastating to the “cause”. By 2020, you will have a hard time finding anyone who willingly admits to having been taken in by this latest Chicken Little drama.

eVince
July 5, 2014 10:58 am

My thanks to Monckton of Brenchley for his explication, and my apology for having botched his name. I will forward his message to my freinds and other lists. Thank you so much.