Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

clip_image002_thumb.pngEl Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.

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 214 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 about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great 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), October 1996 to July 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 Great 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 three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).

The Great 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 more than two dozen 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 –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).

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 Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

Why RSS? Well, it’s the first of the five datasets to report each month, so it’s topical. Also, it correctly shows how much bigger the el Niño of 1998 was than any of its successors. It was the only event of its kind in 150 years that caused widespread coral bleaching. Other temperature records do not distinguish so clearly between the 1998 el Niño and the rest. It is carefully calibrated to correct for orbital degradation in the old NOAA satellite on which it relies. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.

Updated key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-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 below 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 near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

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 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 well over 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 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014 – more than half the 427-month 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 vote
Article Rating
449 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Shearer
August 2, 2014 8:03 am

Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

Leonard Weinstein
August 2, 2014 8:21 am

R. Shearer,
It does not matter if natural cooling exactly cancelled out AGW, or if there is no significant AGW. The supporters of CAGW insisted that CO2 is the main force that drives average temperature, and insisted it would totally dominate any natural variation (except short term volcanic effects). Skeptics have contended that either the forcing was much smaller than promoted, so that it was not a real problem, or that natural variation dominated the human CO2 contribution, so that it was not the main controlling method. These skeptics positions have been supported with actual data evidence, although which of the two factors is more important is not fully resolved.
The issue was the possible onset of a major rising temperature problem due to CO2 increase, and it has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is significant reason to think an average cooling trend for at least several decades is more likely than a warming trend, following the plateau.

Rick K
August 2, 2014 8:22 am

Wonderful information. Much appreciated, Christopher.

August 2, 2014 8:28 am

Does WFT use a different method for calculations? The reason I ask is that WFT gives a positive slope of “slope = 1.25851e-05 per year” for 214 months. However the slopes is negative “slope = -0.000162934 per year” for 213 months.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the negative slope for 213 months is an order of magnitude more than the positive slope for 214 months, so to the nearest month, 214 could be argued for.
The anomaly of 0.350 is the fifth highest July. A record is out of reach since the average for the remaining five months must now be 0.946 which has never been reached.
With an average over seven months of 0.267, RSS is now ranked 6th.
1 {1998, 0.550},
2 {2010, 0.472},
3 {2005, 0.33},
4 {2003, 0.32},
5 {2002, 0.315},
6 {2007, 0.256},
7 {2001, 0.246},
8 {2006, 0.231}

richard
August 2, 2014 8:29 am

amazing considering the temp jiggery-pokery by GISS over the last few decades.

August 2, 2014 8:29 am

It is time for the people to CLOSE THE EPA before they bankrupt the people and industries.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html

MikeB
August 2, 2014 8:35 am

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

This doesn’t seem right to me. Satellites infer Earth temperatures at various altitudes by examining microwave radiation emitted by oxygen isotopes in the atmosphere. If they look spaceward there won’t be any oxygen and so I do not see how they can calibrate themselves that way.
But, I am no expert in this field. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable (Dr. Roy Spencer for example) would care to comment.

Richard M
August 2, 2014 8:39 am

The recent El Niño conditions of the Pacific have no doubt added a little to the anomaly. And, since this added warmth looks like it will have been exhausted by the end of August I look for another cooling off this fall and winter to low anomaly value as we’ve seen over the last several years. If this happens then the start date of the pause will revert back to around the first of July. Early 2015 could easily see the pause stretch to 18.5 years.

Cheshirered
August 2, 2014 8:42 am

Two points if I may.
Firstly, isn’t it time the IPCC’s prediction of 4.8C by 2100 is properly refuted? Observations and reducing climate sensitivity estimates indicate such an outlandish prediction has no credibility whatsoever. It would appear to be retained by the IPCC solely to allow alarmist headline writers a free hand.
Secondly, could Lord M be so kind as to explain in layman’s terms what is the actual definition of “no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years”? Is it the margin of measuring error or something else? Thanks.

Baart1980
August 2, 2014 8:44 am

What after el Nino ends ?

Richard M
August 2, 2014 8:45 am

One thing I find strange is a positive anomaly for the continental US. Although it is low, I thought most of the country was experiencing quite cool conditions.

Charlie
August 2, 2014 8:47 am

‘….the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.’
It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..

August 2, 2014 8:59 am

ACTUALLY
it has been globally cooling
when you throw the dice three times
and it comes up “cooling”
three times
what can you say?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
(look at the graphs at the end of each table)

mark in toledo
August 2, 2014 9:00 am

“It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..”
Charlie…of course it can. If the two new months of temperatures require that we drop the earliest two months to find the “length of the pause” then that’s exactly what can (and did) happen. remember the question…”How long back can we go and show totally flat temperatures?” the answer to that question can be the same in length for 6 months in a row, if the early months were cool…..

August 2, 2014 9:02 am

I thought global warming wasn’t the issue anymore. Isn’t it all about “climate change” now?

GeeJam
August 2, 2014 9:08 am

So, how many unnecessary trillions have been squandered – in an attempt to “remedy” 17 years and 10 months of non-existent warming? Frightening. Just frittering it all away on a whim.
Thank you MiLord. Just adore the line where you say “Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.”

Don Keiller
August 2, 2014 9:13 am

Another Green “expert” exposed.
“He has published nothing on [shale gas] in any proper scientific forum – no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo-scientific scaremongering. He falsely claims to be a chartered geologist. That’s fraudulent. It’s wilful untruth. I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the university by someone who never fails to use his university affiliation.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/8/2/smythe-busted.html

August 2, 2014 9:15 am

Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton.
This lack of warming is real. I just checked the NCDC temperatures and got a cooling trend of 0.03°C/Decade from 2005 to 2013. NCDC is the database that shows the shortest “pause”, only from around 2005.

Neil
August 2, 2014 9:16 am

There’s still an el-Nino forming?

highflight56433
August 2, 2014 9:17 am

Another example of lying with statistics rather than thinking scientific fact: CO2 has a lower heat index than water vapor. Therefore, diluting the atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration lowers the overall heat index of the atmosphere. If I wanted to heat planet Mars atmosphere I would add what? ANS: Water vapor. Point being, claiming our impact on increasing CO2 as the driving force for global warming is bunk. 🙂

Ex-expat Colin
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee unqualified majority believe the IPCC current status. The two qualified (Lilley/Stringer) said its IPCC BS more or less. Ms Lucas has given Milliband a letter slagging Stringer off.
The weather here in Worcestershire is bright/warm and the plants love it….C02 works for the good. Grapes abundant soon.
Just ordering my two new Diesel electric sets and building a vast fuel tank. Do I need CCS?

Lance Wallace
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

“auto-regression” is a meaningless term–you mean “autocorrelation.” And whether there is so little you can ignore it requires more proof than the simple claim. And if the process is chaotic, a linear regression tells us nothing about what will happen in the future. McKitrick has lately presented a new econometric approach that searches time series data for a possible breakpoint or step change. Using all the temperature data from about 1959, their method finds a breakpoint occurring in 1976 IIRC that in fact corresponds to the Great Pacific Shift (identified by great changes in fishery populations and other observations). For the 17 years before 1976 and the 38 years afterward, the best fit is in fact two lines each of zero slope, offset by an upward jump of something less than a degree C in 1976. My computer is acting up presently so I can’t provide a link, but it was featured in WUWT a couple of days ago.

urederra
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

Short answer: Nobody knows.
Long answer: In order to reply to that question first we must know very accurately how the natural cycles work and what the human contribution to warming (and cooling, I guess) is. We do not know either of those, partly because we need to know the Earth’s heat balance and the only thing we have are some poorly maintained and highly adjusted temperature datasets.

PMHinSC
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

MikeB says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:35 am
“The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers…. This doesn’t seem right to me.”
It would probably be less confusion if it read:
The satellite datasets are based on measurements calibrated against platinum resistance thermometers.

Beta Blocker
August 2, 2014 9:21 am

Monckton of Brenchley:
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 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.

Was least-squares linear regression used to calculate the two CET trends?

Editor
August 2, 2014 9:28 am

Neil says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:16 am
> There’s still an el-Nino forming?
New weather/climate aphorism: Cold PDO – El Niño won’t show.

SteveT
August 2, 2014 9:37 am

Charlie says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
‘….the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.’
It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..
*******************************************************************************************
Sure it can, If you imagine the months being counted backwards and calculating any warming from the end of the current month backwards as far as it takes to get no warming.
All it means is that the latest month being added replaces the previous earliest month in the series because to keep the earlier month to give 17yrs 11 months would result in a warming result.
Hope that’s clear
SteveT

SteveT
August 2, 2014 9:41 am

Sorry Mark in Toledo at 0.00am, you beat me to it and explained it better. I’d forgotten how long since I last refreshed.
SteveT

SteveT
August 2, 2014 9:42 am

OOps 9.00am
SteveT

August 2, 2014 9:51 am

For the latest updated cooling forecast based on the natural quasi -periodicities in solar activity see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Here is a summary of the conclusions.
“I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 NH Forecast
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13Global Forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.
3.2.2. Observations.
a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.
During the last year Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then .This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months , and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase .The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.
b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
“There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United states. Indeed as I write this in Houston on July 29th 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, finally the snow cover never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop as suggested by Steve Goddard,”

Jim Clarke
August 2, 2014 9:54 am

“R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
Near 100%! Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, all else being equal, should produce some warming, just nowhere near what the IPCC says it should. Nonetheless, if the CO2 content increases and there is no warming, something must be offsetting that warming. I would say that it is 100% natural cooling, but there is a slight chance that we humans are doing something else (land use changes, aerosols, con trails, etc.) that is cancelling some of the warming.
But, like Leonard Weinstein said, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the CAGW Theory of climate change is proven wrong by these observations, no matter what reason or excuse is given for the lack of warming.

August 2, 2014 10:07 am

I like the de Vries Cycle for near term predictions. Cooling for the next 80+ years – modulated by the AMO and PDO.

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 10:17 am

Lance Wallace:
In your post at August 2, 2014 at 9:21 am you say

And if the process is chaotic, a linear regression tells us nothing about what will happen in the future.

The discussion is about the recent past. Only you has mentioned the future.
So, your point is?
Richard

August 2, 2014 10:17 am

Jim Clarke says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
I have come to the conclusion that CO2 has zero effect on the Earth climate. Solar + ocean cycles explains it all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/solar-amo-pdo-cycles-combined-reproduce-the-global-climate-of-the-past/
The present “stagnation” of global temperature ( Fig. 5 ) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum, around which it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. Due to the de Vries cycle the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.
The article gives a slight nod to CO2. I give none.

M Courtney
August 2, 2014 10:19 am

Yet the length of the Great 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.

Exactly.
It doesn’t matter how technical you sound when you express an opinion.
It doesn’t matter how authoritative the position is from which you express an opinion.
It doesn’t matter if you express your opinion in Latin, Sanskrit, Computer Code or Interpretive Dance.
If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And your opinion can be disregarded.

John Finn
August 2, 2014 10:21 am

While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.
That aside some of the comparisons in the above post are ridiculous, e.g CET and global trends.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 10:25 am

Dr Norman Page says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:51 am
If the Holocene lasts as long as the Eemian (the MIS 5 interglacial), it has about 5000 more years to run. If as long as the Holsteinian (name in Northern Europe for the MIS 11 interglacial), then a lot more time than that is left for balmy conditions. The Holocene has already endured for longer than the intervening, relatively weak interglacials of MIS 9 & 7.
MIS 11 is generally considered the best orbital mechanical (which factors control insolation) analogue for the Holocene. It lasted long enough & was sufficiently warmer than the Holocene for the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet largely to melt thanks to natural global warming. This dome only partially melted during the Eemian, also warmer than & longer lasting than the Holocene so far.
This excellent 2011 study of German lake sediments shows the similarities in short time scale climatic variations between the MIS 11 & Holocene interglacials, which fluctuations correlate well with solar cycles. So no need to posit volcanic triggers or any other explanation for decadal to centennial scale warmer & cooler periods in the Holocene. The best supported hypothesis remains the sun. For still shorter time scales, the lake observations record ENSO & NAO variations.:
Sub-decadal- to decadal-scale climate cyclicity during the Holsteinian interglacial (MIS 11) evidenced in annually laminated sediments
Abstract.
To unravel the short-term climate variability during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11, which represents a close analogue to the Holocene with regard to orbital boundary conditions, we performed microfacies and time series analyses on a 3200-yr-long record of annually laminated
Holsteinian lake sediments from Dethlingen, northern Germany.
These biogenic varves comprise two sub-layers: a light sub-layer, which is controlled by spring/summer diatom blooms, and a dark sub-layer consisting mainly of amorphous
organic matter and fragmented diatom frustules deposited during autumn/winter. Time series analyses were performed on the thickness of the light and dark sub-layers. Signals exceeding the 95% and 99% confidence levels occur at periods that are near-identical to those known from modern instrumental data and Holocene palaeoclimatic records.
Spectral peaks at periods of 90, 25, and 10.5 yr are likely associated with the 88-, 22- and 11-yr solar cycles, respectively. This variability is mainly expressed in the light sublayer spectra, suggesting solar influence on the palaeoproductivity of the lake. Significant signals at periods between 3 and 5 yr and at 6 yr are strongest expressed in the dark sub-layer spectra and may reflect an influence of the El Ni˜no-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation
(NAO) during autumn/winter.
Our results suggest that solar forcing and ENSO/NAO-like variability influenced central European climate during MIS 11 similarly to the present interglacial, thus demonstrating the comparability of the two interglacial periods at sub-decadal to decadal timescales.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clim-past.net%2F7%2F987%2F2011%2Fcp-7-987-2011.pdf&ei=CRjdU_bVL8vliwLw44DgBQ&usg=AFQjCNELzOCYxtgqsBdpmsFwfy5-7RojJw&sig2=uU2G8WVo65lp0P25bhIF3Q&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGE

PMHinSC
August 2, 2014 10:30 am

R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
urederra says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:21 am
Nobody knows.
Jim Clarke says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
Near 100%!
My answer is: Near 0%
It find it almost statistically possible for a natural phenomena to cancel an anthropogenic effect for over 17 years. Were it not for the cliché “a monkey hitting keys at random for an infinite amount of time will create a complete works of William Shakespeare” I would drop the “near.”
So, the answer to your question is “nobody knows”, “100%,” or “0%.”
Is there anything else we can help you with?

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 10:31 am

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am
” earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”

Evidence of this can be found in the thermal expansion component of sea level rise.

highflight56433
August 2, 2014 10:31 am

Dr Norman Page says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:51 am …”As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, finally the snow cover never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop as suggested by Steve Goddard,””
If snow cover never melts, glaciation is faster than as stated “a few thousands years.” Example: New glaciers on Mt. St Helens since 1980.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/st_helens/st_helens_geo_hist_104.html

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 10:34 am

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am
Sea level rise has slowed. Sea ice extent is growing. The “data” on ocean heat content are only slightly less reliable than the “adjusted” surface temperature record.
But the important point is that the predictions of GCM models have been falsified, so are worse than worthless for purposes of advising public policy.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 10:37 am

PMHinSC says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:30 am
Natural (& possibly man-made) cooling more than cancels out whatever small warming effect might occur from man-made GHGs. The earth is presently cooling, which corrupt “adjustments” to valid surface observations can no longer hide, thanks to the vigilance of satellites.

August 2, 2014 10:45 am

John Finn says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1699977
Henry says
there is no global warming whatsoever
it is only cooling
I threw the dice three times
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
and three times it comes up global cooling
[you can do any test of for the significance for those correlation coefficients and it will show a pass]
However, this [global cooling] will cause some major problems
Any ideas what those problems might be, John?

bit chilly
August 2, 2014 10:46 am

john finn,can you point me to literature on the instruments measuring this oceanic energy increase ,specifically the chapter on their accuracy.

August 2, 2014 10:50 am

Milodonharlani
I agree with you that it is important to know where earth stands relative to the 100,000- 20,000 year Milankovitch orbital ice age cycles which are then modulated by the solar activity quasiperiodicities .here’s what the link at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
says about the former:
“The information in Fig 4 is essential for forecasting climate over future periods of several thousand years and longer.The green eccentricity curves in Fig 4 show that Marine Isotope Stage 11 (424-374,000 years ago) and MIS 19 ( 788-775,000 ) were the Milankovitch cycles most closely analogous to the present day. The 400,000 +/- year periodicities seen by inspecting the same curve are very stable and have been recognized in the Geological Record as far back as 400 million years. It would appear from a glance at Fig.4 that such forecasting would be straightforward but this is not so. In climate forecasting other things in the system as a whole are never equal with the result that, as reported in the Wiki article, opinions differ e.g.:
“An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.[23]
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.
As a further example Rohling et al 2010 say:
” Recent comparisons pf CO2 and CH4 trends throughMIS-19 with those of the Holocene, in the absence of sea level constraints, have been used to suggest that the Holocene should have terminated already .Kutzbach et al 2009.
and Tzedakis et al 2012 discus various mechanisms and timings
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html
they say:
“Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv.”
The relative Antarctic temperatures at the Vostock site over the last four glacials and interglacials preceding our Holocene warming peak are shown in dark green in Fig 4.
It is of interest to note that Northern Canadian temperatures during the Eemian interglacial (130,000-115,000 years ago) are estimated to be 5 degrees C higher than today and global sea levels were about 5 meters higher than at present. During the Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial Greenland temperatures were about 8 degrees C warmer than today and global sea levels have been variously estimated from 8-20 meters above present day. A final point of interest is the rapid temperature rise which terminates all the glacial periods. The reasons for this rapid warming remain the subject of active investigation. as is the relative length of the interglacial periods. The repeated episodes of rapid warming during the Pleistocene indicate that climate response to the natural drivers is non – linear and some combination of resonances between drivers results in passing a threshold beyond which a period of positive feedback produces rapid change.
Of interest in this regard is the current declining trend in the earths obliquity
Wiki says
“Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling “

justaskin
August 2, 2014 10:55 am

I tire of these graphs that only go back 15-20 years and say, “Look at the ‘Great Pause’!” If one looks at the global (not specific locations, like Central England) temperature record back to 1850, you will see several other “great pauses.” http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
So is there something special about the current pause? Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?

Beta Blocker
August 2, 2014 10:56 am

Monckton of Brenchley:
” …. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. …”
===========================================
H Grouse:
Monckton’s cherry.
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

“>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
UAH-only versions of Figures 1, 2, and 3 covering the same timeframes would be very useful for comparison purposes.

August 2, 2014 11:00 am

. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.
As Steven Mcintyre and I both document. The climate gate mails are not about giss or hadcru or ncdc.
Your mistaken impression contributed to Jones getting off
Scott free. Rather than investigating the proxy papers
The investigations misdirected attention to temperature records. Skeptics didn’t help matters by saying the mails
Were about giss and hadcru.
At one point I was contacted by high profile Washington dc
Skeptics demanding that I find some way to attack
Noaa with the mails.
The mails were about proxies. Ar4 chapter 6. Gatekeepers.
And fighting for a. Not about giss. Not about hadcru.
And in case you want to bring up harryreadme??? That’s about a dataset not used in climate studies
[“And fighting for a.” ?? Typo? .mod]

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 11:01 am

Beta Blocker says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
“very useful for comparison purposes.”
This is a rough comparison
.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:02 am

Dr Norman Page says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:50 am
Experts disagree over whether MIS 11 or MIS 19 is the better analogue for orbital mechanics of the Holocene. But the ~400,000 year cycle in interglacial “repetition” is well supported. The Southern Dome definitely melted during MIS 19.
The world will indeed be lucky if the Holocene lasts as long as MIS 11. Losing the Southern Dome & associated possible mild sea level rise can be adapted to & is a small price to pay for not suffering mile high ice sheets over Canada, parts of the US, northern Britain, Scandinavia, Siberia & Tibet, to mention just the NH, plus more extensive montane glaciers & sea ice. Since the Holocene has been so much cooler than the Eemian & MIS 11, we might not even lose the Southern Dome if our interglacial should endure another 20,000 years. There are also techniques for cooling the atmosphere if need be, however risky.

Weather Dave
August 2, 2014 11:06 am

Great information. Thanks. However here in the South Pacific, home of ENSO, there as yet is no El Nino. Still Neutral I’m pleased to say. All latest data from BoM.

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 11:08 am

Friends:
John Finn and H Grouse have attempted to redefine global warming by introducing the irrelevance of energy gain in the oceans. By this redefinition they hope to avoid the fact that global warming has stopped.
John Finn attempted to ‘move the goalposts’ to another planet when he wrote at August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am saying in total

While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.
That aside some of the comparisons in the above post are ridiculous, e.g CET and global trends.

I ask everyone to – like me – ignore Finn’s final sentence because it is a ‘red herring’ intended to disrupt debate.
Please consider his daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.
Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase energy.
Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.
All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
Richard

justaskin
August 2, 2014 11:14 am

Richard,
Surely you can appreciate that heat circulates through the ocean-atmosphere system, so it seems ridiculous to ignore the warming oceans and melting ice and declare that global warming has stopped. Who is throwing out the “red herrings” to disrupt debate? (And I agree–see my previous post–that comparing local temperatures to global trends is equally ridiculous.)

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 11:16 am

richardscourtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am
“the irrelevance of energy gain in the ocean”

Richard, you ought to spend a hot summer day at the ocean shore, or walk on that shore in the dead of winter. You’ll appreciate the effect the water has on air temperatures.

August 2, 2014 11:18 am

. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.
As Steven Mcintyre and I both document. The climate gate mails are not about giss or hadcru or ncdc.
Your mistaken impression contributed to Jones getting off
Scott free. Rather than investigating the proxy papers
The investigations misdirected attention to temperature records. Skeptics didn’t help matters by saying the mails
Were about giss and hadcru.
At one point I was contacted by high profile Washington dc
Skeptics demanding that I find some way to attack
Noaa with the mails.
The mails were about proxies. Ar4 chapter 6. Gatekeepers.
And fighting [Freedom of Information Act requests]. Not about giss. Not about hadcru.
And in case you want to bring up harryreadme??? That’s about a dataset not used in climate studies

mellyrn
August 2, 2014 11:20 am

Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
Funnily enough, that same perfect coincidence (of some mysterious cooling to exactly cancel CO2’s alleged effect) is going on on Venus, where the [temperature at the altitude where atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth’s sea level] is no hotter than mere proximity to the Sun would have it be, despite 960,000 ppm CO2.
Call me Ms. Silly, but I just really wouldn’t care to base policy on a theory that depends on magically-perfect coincidences.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:20 am

justaskin says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:14 am
Globally, sea ice is growing, not melting. When the PDO/AMO cycle fully reverses, Arctic sea ice will join Antarctic ice in growing. It may already have done so, but we’ll have to wait a few years to be sure. Whatever slight effect a possibly scarcely measurable higher air T in the Arctic might have had on sea ice there is negligible compared to water T, controlled by oceanic circulation.
Moreover, Antarctic sea ice is far more important in regulating global T, since it reaches into lower latitudes, where its effect on albedo makes a more significant contribution.

August 2, 2014 11:20 am

Fighting foia
Damn auto correct on phone

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:22 am

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
Yet air T is cooling globally, not warming.
No one doubts the moderating effect of water on nearby land T, except for “Chuckie”, a troll loon without a valid email address on another thread.

August 2, 2014 11:30 am

Satellites don’t measure temperature.
They measure brightness.
Temperature is reconstructed by applying physical theory
And idealized weighting schemes.
Further the data series are heavily and repeatedly adjusted to change the past measurements.
These adjustments are called corrections.
Satellite data is not raw.
It is not temperature
It is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature that
Relies on radiative physics being correct.

Daryl M
August 2, 2014 11:33 am

Charlie says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
“‘….the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.’
It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..”
Yes it can stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row. Think about it.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:49 am

Steven Mosher says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:30 am
Satellite observations are far more reliable than the “adjusted” largely imaginary surface “temperature record”. Among the many laughable “adjustments” making the main GASTA “data sets” fraudulently worse than worthless are adjusting the past always colder & more recent readings hotter, UHI effect (remarkably hotter rather than cooler, as a rational person would expect), adding unneeded stations in preposterously sited locations (such as the second Death Valley site) & adjusting ocean T upwards to match the rigged land station data.
Once the adjustments have been adjusted for, the 1930s once again become hotter than the 1990s, as in reality was the case.

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 11:49 am

John Finn, justaskin and H Grouse:
Before global warming stopped you were happy to support the definition of global warming as being rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA). But now global warming has stopped you say energy content of the climate system is a better indicator of climate change.
Why were you silent when rise in GASTA was being proclaimed as being global warming?
Why did you not proclaim that GASTA was an inappropriate indicator of global warming before global warming stopped?
Why did you not say that global warming was not an appropriate indicator of climate change until after global warming stopped?
Why did you not say that change of energy in the climate system was a better indicator of climate change than global warming until after global warming stopped?
I have been saying those things for years. Indeed, ‘climategate’ revealed my lobbying ‘The Team’ about those things. Read my Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘climategate’ and read its Appendix B.
In comparison with you warmunists the Vicar Of Bray seems consistent and honourable.
Richard

Beta Blocker
August 2, 2014 11:52 am

H Grouse says: August 2, 2014 at 11:01 am

Beta Blocker says: August 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
[UAH versus RSS, 1997 – 2014] “very useful for comparison purposes.”

This is a rough comparison [UAH versus RSS, 1997 – 2014]
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend.

Very good. From a quick visual inspection of the Wood For Trees graphic, the rate of increase in UAH was very roughly + 0.08 C per decade between the two end points. Is that what you yourself get from a visual estimate of the UAH temperature rise?

Harry Passfield
August 2, 2014 11:53 am

Steven Mosher says:August 2, 2014 at 11:30 am

“Satellites don’t measure temperature […]
Satellite data is not raw.
It is not temperature
It is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature that
Relies on radiative physics being correct.”

My first reaction was, Oh Jeez! What do you want to happen Mosher? Do you really want – so much – the world to warm and suffer as your ‘science’ predicts, or do you hope to be wrong? (Silly question – you can only be right – and be wiped out by a 1.5 Deg C increase in warming. As if.)
My second is this:Can you tell me of any other ‘adjusted corrected…temperature [series]…’ that supports your point of view?

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 11:54 am

richardscourtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
Richard, when you take that walk upon the shoreline beach, listen carefully to the sound of the waves crashing on the sand.

Very soothing, does wonders for blood pressure.

JJ
August 2, 2014 11:54 am

justaskin says:
I tire of these graphs that only go back 15-20 years and say, “Look at the ‘Great Pause’!”

Yet you’re still enthralled by those graphs that only cover the 15-20 years before that and say “Look at the “Global Warming’!” Funny how that works.

If one looks at the global (not specific locations, like Central England) temperature record back to 1850, you will see several other “great pauses.”

You will also see several other “global warming” periods in the record back to 1850. IPCC CO2 warming theory says that anthropogenic CO2 cannot be responsible for those warming periods earlier than 1950. Only politics causes them to say something different about the one since. Kind of like how you choose which 15-20 year periods to tire of.

So is there something special about the current pause?

Yes. It occurs during a time when CO2 warming theory claims it should not exist. As with the above, this indicates that CO2 warming theory is wrong.

Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?

Nah. Same old climate regime, periodically pumping more heat into the oceans than the air (which would not be a particularly bad thing) and vice versa (ditto).

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 12:02 pm

Harry Passfield says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:53 am
The calculations for & corrections to the satellite observations are scientifically justified. The adjustments to land station “data” are a shameless, intentional scam.

Schrodinger's Cat
August 2, 2014 12:05 pm

Our water based planet is unlikely to be prone to the instability of strong water vapour GHG positive feedback, otherwise it would have experienced runaway temperatures many times in the past. It would only require elevated temperatures to get it going.
Water vapour GHG warming probably does occur, but it is clear from the stability of our climate that it is limited and it is likely that we are beyond that limit because we do not see the predicted feedback today or evidence of its existence.
Carbon dioxide warming is less than for water vapour and has a logarithmic response to concentration and can also be limited by band saturation. GHG back radiation absorption, followed by convection and radiation to space can be a cooling mechanism. Whatever the dominant mechanism, it becomes clearer with each passing year that the carbon dioxide contribution to temperature rise may have peaked at around one degree per doubling, which is well within our ability to cope without alarmist measures.
All of that is without attributing the temperature pause to cooling influences, or indeed, to attributing some of the earlier warming to natural variability.
So, while we can never rule out the ability of nature to surprise us, it does look as though the climate models have got it wrong.
In the meantime, our governments continue to squander our money at an incredible rate on combating climate change and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We are being locked into energy policies that are insane.
How long are we going to allow our governments to blunder onwards before we call them to account and take notice of the ever increasing discrepancy between climate models and reality?

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 12:07 pm

H Grouse:
In addition to your offensive post at August 2, 2014 at 11:54 am perhaps you could provide a reply to my post at August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am which answers my questions. I think that is the least I can reasonably expect from warmunists who have subjected me to years of abuse because I said things they now want said.
I provide this link to help you find the questions.
And my heart condition does not enable me to take long walks along the beach so that solution to one of my health problems won’t work, but thanks for your suggestion.
Richard

greymouser70
August 2, 2014 12:07 pm

MikeB says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:35 am
The satellites calibrate themselves by pointing their sensors(mirrors) into deep space and measuring the temperature in the microwave band. If the sensors do not return a value of 2.78K, the difference in the temperature reading is added to or subtracted from the microwave readings for the Earth’s atmosphere. (Not actually sure if this is the way it’s done, but it seems logical to me.)

August 2, 2014 12:11 pm

In answer to Richard M and to Neil, there is another warm wave in the Pacific, so the el Niño may have some life in it yet. Temperatures could rise till the spring of 2015, though they might not. I’m not the IPCC, so no crystal ball.
“Cheshirered” is right to say the IPCC’s high-end projection of 4.8 C warming by 2100 should be refuted. It’s plainly far too high. The oleaginous Sir David King, the UK’s “climate change ambassador”, told the Environmentalist Committee of the Commons that 4.5 C was the warming to expect by 2100. Make that 1 C at most.
In answer to “Cheshirered’s” second question, one can go back 22 years in the RSS dataset without warming distinguishable from the 0.15 C measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties, and more than 26 years (that is Werner Brozek’s value) without statistical significance at (if I remember aright) the 95% confidence level.
“Baart1980” asks what happens when El Niño ends. Usually, as one can see from the displayed anomalies (dark blue stochastic data on the graphs in the head posting), an El Niño is followed by a La Niña in which much of the El Niño warming is canceled out.
In answer to Mr Valencia, one can go back 13 years 4 months and still find a zero trend on the NCDC data.
With respect, “highflight53422” may have misunderstood the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.
In answer to “Beta Blocker”, Yes, I use least-squares linear regression, because everyone understands it, and it is what the IPCC uses. “Phil” Jones recommends it.
Not sure about Norman Page’s prediction of solar-induced cooling. The climate is strongly homeostatic, and the greenhouse-gas theory would lead us to expect some warming, all other things being equal. But I don’t have the IPCC’s crystal ball. He could be right.
“H Grouse” suggests I have cherry-picked the RSS dataset. Yet only a few days ago I presented a six-monthly results update for all five datasets. Since 1979, all five datasets have produced outputs whose differences fall within the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties in the data and are, therefore, indistinguishable from each other. They all show little warming since 1979, and none distinguishable from the combined uncertainties for more than 13 years. The models have failed.
Mr Courtney is right to draw Mr Wallace’s attention to the fact that I had not sought to make any predictions on the basis of the trends shown in the head posting. By definition, linear trends are not predictive: but they do show clearly enough what has happened, and what has happened is that the warming of recent decades is well below what the models had predicted. By now, if the record rises in CO2 over recent decades were really going to cause global warming, they would have caused a lot more than they have.
Mr Finn continues to state, without citing evidence, that the oceans are “accumulating energy” at a rapid rate. However, Dr David Evans has calculated on the basis of the Argo measurements that the oceans (which have not been warming much recently) are warming at one-seventh the rate predicted by the models. And, since atmosphere that is supposed to be the cause of the ocean warming has not itself warmed, and is in any event three orders of magnitude less dense than the oceans it is supposed to be warming, there is at least a statable case that such warming as may be occurring in the oceans is more from below than from above. The truth is that we are unable to measure ocean heat content to anything like a resolution sufficient to justify any claim that the oceans are warming at all, let alone that they are warming because of CO2.
Mr Finn is also incorrect to say mentioning the central England temperature is “ridiculous”. CET is a reasonable indication of global trends: it is on the right latitude, and over the past two cycles of the PDO (i.e. 120 years) its trend is within one-hundredth of a degree of the global trend. One understands that he is sour at the failure of the models in which so many so foolishly placed so much reliance: but he should perhaps be more critical of the models and less critical of straightforward data demonstrating that the models were wrong.
Mr Grouse finds evidence of ocean warming in the thermosteric-expansion component of sea-level rise. Except that, on the Envisat and GRACE data, sea level has either hardly risen or even fallen a little, and there is evidence that the Jason/Topex satellite series have been tampered with (Moerner, 2011) to show warming that has not occurred, and it is clear that the intercalibration errors between the successive satellites in that series are greater than the total sea-level rise they purport to measure.

Warmist Claptrap
August 2, 2014 12:20 pm

What “El Niño” ???? – it seem to have fizzled out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/enso/

highflight56433
August 2, 2014 12:24 pm

With respect, “highflight56433” may have misunderstood the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.
The number of photons being constant are distributed over a fixed area. Therefore, there are not more radiators. The photons too would have to increase.

hunter
August 2, 2014 12:27 pm

Here is the problem: Mr. Monckton has been so inflammatory and so over the top on other issues, his message about what is giong on with the pause- which is valid- is simply ignored by many who could other wise benefit from this important news.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 12:32 pm

hunter says:
August 2, 2014 at 12:27 pm
IMO “plateau” is preferable to “pause”. Plateau suggests that in coming years warming could resume, ie the plateau could lead to more mountains, but also that it could be followed by another valley. Pause IMO implies certainty that the next move in GASTA will be higher, which may well be the case if data corruption continues unabated, regardless of what actually happens in nature.
IMO our planet is already cooling, following a plateau from c. 1996 to c. 2005 or later in the past decade, with the timing differing a little in the two satellite data sets.

Kasmir
August 2, 2014 12:35 pm

“What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
Even if that were the case, it would imply that natural positive forcings must exist that are commensurate with that cooling, as otherwise the climate would end up in an icebox and stay there. Strong natural cooling implies strong natural warming.

Ron C.
August 2, 2014 12:36 pm

Someone said a million monkeys randomly banging on keyboards would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. He obviously has not spent much time on the internet.

August 2, 2014 12:36 pm

Justaskin There is a variable delay ( 12 – 20 years) between the solar activity driver and the ocean SSTs and Total OHC response. For the total OHC see Fig 18 from wunsch et al at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/deep-oceans-are-cooling-amidst-a-sea-of-modeling-uncertainty-new-research-on-ocean-heat-content/
This shows OHC peaked about 2009.
SSTs peaked about 2003 see FIg 17 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Here’s a quote from the same post – check Figs 13 and 14.
” Lockwood et al 2014 in press say in their abstract at http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2009/Lockwood_ApJ_openflux_F1.pdf
“Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar
activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when
25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV.
Extrapolating the linear declines seen in all three parameters since 1985, yields
predictions that the grand maximum will end in the years 2013, 2014, or 2027 using VSW, FS, or B respectively”.
My own view ,based on the Ap index Fig 13 and Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity maximum peaked in about 1991.with the sharp decline beginning about 2005 – 6.”
The 1991 peak represents a peak in the 1000 year solar activity quasi periodicity see Figs 5,6,and7 at the same post.

papiertigre
August 2, 2014 12:39 pm

Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months
It’s probably all those tropical storm clouds getting in the way of the sunshine.
Screws the El up.

Arno Arrak
August 2, 2014 12:44 pm

I quote: “…there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979.”
I beg to differ, lord Chtistopher. The longest period witthout any warming in the global instrumental temperature record, once satellites first watched it, is the eighteen year stretch from 1979 to the beginning of 1997. The warmist cabal has successfully managed to suppress this fact by calling it the “late twentieth century warming” and creating a phony temperature rise of 0.1 degrees Celsius there. You will find this phonyness in all three currently used ground-based temperature curves, but not in satellite curves. Luckily these guys have not been able to take over satellite measurements or we really would not know what happens to global temperature. In the eighties and nineties there are five El Nino peaks present just before the super El Nino of 1998 arrives. The valleys between the peaks are La Nina valleys that normally follow after each continental El Nino peak. The exceptions may be El Nino Modoki where an El Nino wave spreads out in the Central Pacific before reaching the South American coast. The temperature difference from an El Nino peak to an adjacent La Nina valley is 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius. The midpoint between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley defines the local mean temperature. Connecting these points shows what global mean temperature is doing. If you do that with the five El Ninos in that time interval you discover that the global mean becomes a horizontal straight line, indicating no warming at all for the eighteen years involved., I did this in my book “What Warming?” in 2010 and you can see the result in my Figure 15. I expected the warmists to ignore the book but I find that people who wish to oppose this cabal are likewise uninformed about what is in it. Do your homework guys! There is more information in this Figure 15 you missed by not reading the book. You will find that the super El Nino of 1998 divides that period approximately in two. To the left of it is the train of El Ninos I just described. The peak of the super El Nino itself is twice as high as the other five. Since each El Nino peak gives us a measure of how much warm water its El Nino wave carried across the ocean we could conservatively estimate that rhe super El Nino carried at least twice as much warm water than any of the others. This much is not available from a regular ENSO oscillation and must have a source outside of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. To the right of the super El Nino the platform of the current warming pause is visible. Its mean temperature is also a horizontal straight line but it is not lined up with the mean temperature of the eighties and nineties. These two horizontal lines, if extended, would form two parallel lines separated by a third of a degree Celsius. This difference in height originated in a very short period of three years, just after the super El Nino had subsided. As a result, the entire twenty-first century stands a third of a degree higher than the eighties and nineties did. Hansen and others of course attribute this to greenhouse warming and keep babbling about the first decade of this century being the warmest one on record. It truly is the warmest on record but not because global warming has anything to do with it. The likelihood is high that the step warming that created this difference in only three years is a result of the huge amount of warm water carried across the ocean by the super El Nino. Now here is a climate phenomenon that truly should be investigated. Unfortunately it is not likely to happen because the billions spent by the government for climate research are all wasted on looking for an imaginary greenhouse effect. As you know, Hansen alleged to the United States Senate in 1988 that he personally had discovered the greenhouse effect. His proof was that there was a 100 year warming culminating in the warmest temperature ever which could not have happened by chance alone. But if you look at his data you find that 30 of these 100 years are definitely not greenhouse warming years and therefore cannot be used to prove that the greenhouse effect exists. Nevertheless, he and IPCC have been pushing greenhouse warming as the cause of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. But the existence of the warming pause torpedoes this fantasy. For 17 years there has been no warming but for 17 years there Arrhenius greenhouse theory has been predicting warming. If your theory predicts warming for 17 years and nothing happens you know that this theory belongs in the trash basket of history. The only greenhouse theory capable of explaining the warming pause is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It predicts what we see: there is no warming despite a constant increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. According to Miskolczi this is explained by the cooperation of water vapor and carbon dioxide, the two major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They establish a joint absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb as usual. But that will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide continues to absorb but its warming power is neutralized by the reduction of water vapor in the atmosphere. The result is complete neutralization of greenhouse warming that the entire IPCC organization is built upon. It follows that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. AGW is simply a pseudo-scientific fantasy, pushed by climate “scientists” anxious to prove that greenhouse warming, is real.

JJ
August 2, 2014 12:48 pm

Steven Mosher says:
It is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature that
Relies on radiative physics being correct.

And it is the adjusted corrected estimate of temperature (that Relies on radiative physics being correct) that demonstrates that CO2 ‘global warming’ theory is wrong.
Thus, if CO2 ‘global warming’ theory is correct, then either:
1) radiative physics must be wrong. Or,
2) the adjustments and corrections must be dominated by elements other than radiative physics that are wrong. Or
3) CO2 ‘global warming’ theory must be dominated by elements other than radiative physics that are wrong.
By these facts, insecure name-dropping Mosher’s straw man argument refutes itself. By rights, that would cause insecure self-aggrandizing Mosher to stop using the ‘radiative physics’ argument. That will not happen.
Instead, insecure pathetic Mosher will make good his drive-by and vanish. He will lay low until the next opportunity arises for him to dress up his smarmy straw man in an “I’m with Steven McIntyre” T-shirt and wave it out the window of the car that his dishonest fake skeptic sugar daddy Richard Muller bought for him.

Paul
August 2, 2014 12:48 pm

Monckton,
In your response to those critiquing your analysis, you say that Central England temps. are indicative of long-term global trends. OK, I agree, they do show warming over the last century (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/).
But in your article, you report “warming trends” and “rates of rise” at this very specific locale, and compare them to global rates, which is not a fair comparison (though a clever one to argue your case) given that there will always be more variability, over any time scale, at a specific locale than over a larger one.
I suggest you consult with a professor of geospatial statistics next time.

August 2, 2014 12:49 pm

Thanks for this post Lord Monckton. This ongoing series of posts about the “pause” is one of my absolute favorite parts of WUWT. But even more than the posts themselves, your comments in the threads answering others is what I look forward to so much. I got a huge grin out of the one I read just before posting this comment of mine — and learned a bit to boot. Win/Win
Keep up the good work! Thanks again.

mellyrn
August 2, 2014 12:50 pm

Water vapour GHG warming probably does occur, but it is clear from the stability of our climate that it is limited….
Well, yeah — atmospheric water vapor concentration is limited by the temperature of the regional atmosphere. Once it passes the saturation point, it rains back out. However much it may warm the local air, it clearly cannot warm it enough to endlessly push the saturation point away.
CO2, otoh, can become the whole atmosphere, or very nearly: see Venus and Mars, at 95, 96% CO2. Doesn’t seem to matter, though.
….CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.
Thank you, Sov. Monckton, that’s very clear. Strangely, though, despite 960,000 little radiators per million, Venus manages to be no warmer than mere proximity to the Sun would have it (if it’s fair to compare Venus’ surface temp with Earth’s surface temp and say, look! it’s “too” hot! then it’s fair to compare southerly Mt. Everest with more northerly Death Valley and say, look! you don’t get cooler as you go poleward from the equator, you get warmer!)
I think the little radiators intercept not only outoing IR, and “radiate” ~half of it planetside instead of letting it all escape, they also intercept the same wavelengths of incoming IR (what, the Sun doesn’t shine in those wavelengths? not at ALL?) and “radiate” ~half — slightly more than half, actually, according to simple geometry — back out into space without letting it get to the surface, for a net gain of, at best, 0, and at worst, a slight loss, especially since CO2 can and apparently does go quite high in the atmosphere.
I see no worldly evidence — not in the last 17+ years, not in the deep paleoclimate, and not on Venus, for any “greenhouse effect” for CO2 at all, apart from simply being a gas. Any atmosphere at all is going to be more energetic, therefore warmer, than no atmosphere, yah?

August 2, 2014 12:56 pm

@ Arno Arrak at August 2, 2014 at 12:44 pm
For the love of God man, please use paragraphs in your comments. I know you want others to read what you write or you would not take the time to write at all. So give us a break and put some white space in your comments.
Some other folks could do that a bit more as well. Just saying.
Disclaimer I admit that age and eyesight problems might cause me to be more sensitive of the white-space issue than some of the young bucks here, but I would wager that I am not alone.

Rob
August 2, 2014 1:01 pm

The PDO has all but destroyed El Niño.
I would expect Global Cooling to commence during the next year.

steverichards1984
August 2, 2014 1:02 pm

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/documentation/amsu_instrument_guide.shtml#2.
Describes how the temperature measuring system works on these satellites.
And yes, the do NOT ‘measure’ temperature but the amount of power ‘sensed’ at defined frequencies (typically 23 GHz and above).
The actual sensor(s) consists of a rotating reflector which ‘looks’ at planet earth as the reflector spins, causing a ‘track’ to be swept across the earths surface, The satellite is also moving, so is the earth. The net results is a sweep of the earths surface is ‘scanned’. At the end of each earth sweep (8 seconds), the sensor is calibrated. It is ‘shown’ deep space, which runs at <3K and it is then shown a hot calibrated body (black body if you wish) at approximately 288K. The 288K is measured by a handful of PT100 sensors.
Therefore each sweep of the reflector (or mirror if you wish) we have a path of earth energy captured, plus the deep cold of space, plus 288K. All these values are sent back to earth to processing.
Yes, it does not 'measure' temperature, it measures the amounts of frequency specific energy and complex processing takes place to give the world the temperature records we require.
Yes, there are errors that can creep into the whole process, but the system and its data is sufficiently public, for errors and/or deceit to be found.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 1:11 pm

mellyrn says:
August 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm
“Venus manages to be no warmer than mere proximity to the Sun would have it”
Isn’t the surface of Venus warmer than the surface of Mercury?
Mercury 426 degrees C on side facing Sun.
Venus 462 degrees C anywhere on surface.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 1:13 pm

mellyrn says:
August 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm
In terms of energy, sunlight at the earth’s surface is around 52 to 55% IR, 43 to 42 percent visible light, & 5 to 3 percent UV (also X-rays during solar flares). At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with ~8% UV on average, but which varies considerably.
So while, yes a bare majority of incoming solar radiation is IR, the IR portion of outgoing reflected energy is higher.

Beta Blocker
August 2, 2014 1:36 pm

Paul says: August 2, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Monckton,
In your response to those critiquing your analysis, you say that Central England temps. are indicative of long-term global trends. OK, I agree, they do show warming over the last century (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/).
But in your article, you report “warming trends” and “rates of rise” at this very specific locale, and compare them to global rates, which is not a fair comparison (though a clever one to argue your case) given that there will always be more variability, over any time scale, at a specific locale than over a larger one.
I suggest you consult with a professor of geospatial statistics next time.

Let’s make a reasonable assumption that CET temperature trends are generally 2X GMT trends but are not precisely synchronous in time with GMT trends — just like we see today in many locations in mid-latitude zones.
If we make this reasonable assumption, then CET tells us that within the last 350 years, trends in GMT of roughly 2 C per century lasting a century occurred before 1950; and also that shorter trends in GMT of roughly 0.2 C per decade lasting roughly forty years occurred before 1950.

Jeff D.
August 2, 2014 1:45 pm

H Grouse :
This might help bring you up to speed as to why certain planets temps vary. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Our impossibly tiny amount of CO2 and the even smaller amount of change that “might” be attributable to humans does not in anyway come close to the 95% of CO2 in the Venus atmosphere let alone the huge partial pressure difference.
Jeff

highflight56433
August 2, 2014 1:53 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm
“With respect, “highflight56433” may have misunderstood the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.”
There can NOT be any additional “little radiators” since the number of photons and area the photons cover is fixed.
(Thought I posted this earlier)

mpainter
August 2, 2014 2:11 pm

The reason that the GCM’s are so erroneous is because they rely on an invented climate sensitivity which invention is devoid of any foundation in the real world, laboratory experiments and vessels notwithstanding. There are no empiricists in the GCM business, apparently. I repeat, “climate sensitivity” factors are all inventions, plucked from a tangle of misunderstood and misapplied theory.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 2:11 pm

Jeff D. says:
August 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm
“This might help bring you up to speed”
The article does not explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury
Simple comparison.
Surface of moon (with no atmosphere) facing the sun is 123 degrees C.
Nowhere on Earth (with atmosphere) get this hot.
Surface of Mercury (with no atmosphere) facing the sun 426 degrees C
Surface of Venus (with atmosphere) 462 degrees C.

After you get thru that, we haven’t even mentioned the variation in distance from the sun between Mercury and Venus.

norah4you
August 2, 2014 2:12 pm

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
What’s empiri, AWG-believer. Guess you will have to look it up in an Encyclopedia 😛

richard verney
August 2, 2014 2:16 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm
///////
It is because of pressure, which about 92 to 93bar! If you transcend deep enough into Jupiter’s atmosphere, even though Jupiter is far away from the sun, it becomes hotter than Venus. It is just the pressure.
Mercury, has all but no atmosphere.

August 2, 2014 2:18 pm

“Paul” is incorrect to say that I compared Central England temperature records to global records. I merely stated that they showed the steepest 40-year and 100-year warming rates in the instrumental record.
“Paul” is also incorrect to assume that over periods as long as several decades there will be an appreciably greater variability in regional than in global temperature. It is fascinating to see how many and how ingenious are the attempts to suggest that there was something exceptional or unprecedented about the rate of global warming in the late 20th century when there was not.
As I have demonstrated, over the past 120 years – two full PDO cycles – the Central England and global datasets show trends within one-hundredth of a degree of one another. Before “Paul” bossily recommends that I should consult professors, he should start by consulting the data.
Mr Arrak is incorrect to state that there was no 0.1 C warming from 1979-1996 in the satellite record. Taking the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, it is indeed present.
“Milodonharlani” wins the prize for the most interesting comment, pointing out that the growth of sea ice in the Antarctic causes a greater increase in albedo than the equivalent loss of sea ice in the Arctic causes a reduction, because the Antarctic sea ice forms at lower latitudes. Of course, the change in albedo caused by Arctic ice loss is minuscule.
“Mellyrn” seems muddled about Venus, apparently not appreciating that elementary radiative-transfer calculations establish that the mean effective temperature of a planetary body with bond albedo thrice that of Earth at the Venusian distance from the Sun in the absence of a greenhouse effect would be just 184 K, while the mean actual temperature thanks to the greenhouse effect from CO2 is 737 K.
The correct scientific position is that the greenhouse effect has been measured repeatedly in the laboratory for CO2, water vapor and many other greenhouse gases, wherefore it exists whether the “slayers” like it or not, as Venus demonstrates. However, in the Earth’s atmosphere complexities such as the non-radiative transports greatly complicate the determination of climate sensitivity, which, though not negligible, is likely to be small. Once the financial incentive to predict doom is taken away from the modelers, no doubt they will make less spectacularly exaggerated predictions than they have.
“Hunter” resorts to mere yah-boo from behind a cloak of anonymity. I hope the moderators will ensure no repetition.

John Finn
August 2, 2014 2:20 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
John Finn, justaskin and H Grouse:
Before global warming stopped you were happy to support the definition of global warming as being rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).

No I wasn’t, Richard. You are confusing me with AGW mainstream scientists. The temperature observations for the surface and atmosphere are certainly more accurate than OHC but they are a less reliable indicator of “global warming”. ARGO measurements show the oceans have continued to warm over the past 8 years or so. A quick ‘back of the envelope’ calculation suggests that the difference between incoming and outgoing energy is ~0.6 w/m2. Unfortunately because of problems with CERES data we can’t determine whether or not this is due to a TOA imbalance. (e.g. because of an enhanced ghg effect).
Whatever the reason the ‘imbalance’ is real and while it continues there is a likelihood that warming of the surface and atmosphere will resume at some point in the future. If the oceans stop warming or start cooling then we can state with a great deal of certainty that global warming has stopped.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 2:20 pm

richard verney says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm
“It is because of pressure,”
..
If pressure makes things warmer, then…..
Surface of the moon has no pressure and is 123 degrees C.
Surface of the earth has 1 atm pressure …….shouldn’t it be warmer than the moon?

Alan Robertson
August 2, 2014 2:29 pm

markstoval says:
August 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Disclaimer I admit that age and eyesight problems might cause me to be more sensitive of the white-space issue than some of the young bucks here, but I would wager that I am not alone.
______________
What? Speak up.

AndyZ
August 2, 2014 2:29 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
Richard, you ought to spend a hot summer day at the ocean shore, or walk on that shore in the dead of winter. You’ll appreciate the effect the water has on air temperatures.

Aren’t you implying here that the water temp is driving the air temperature? If thats the case then why are you arguing the opposite (that the air temp is actually charging the oceans) to explain the pause?

August 2, 2014 2:35 pm

John Finn Re oceans see my 12:36pm post above also note the excellent work of Lyman and Johnson. Their latest compilation of the trends in OHC shows that the oceans are cooling from the top down as we might expect on a world which is just entering a cooling trend. see table 1 at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Quote
“Table 1.
Warming reported as heat flux applied to Earth’s entire surface area (in W m-2) corresponding to trends in annual REP OHCA estimates from unweighted linear fitsfrom benchmark years through 2011 for different depths of integration (left column).
A benchmark year is defined as the year in which sampling coverage all layers being considered first exceeds 50%, and remains > 50% thereafter. Layer warming trends over time periods during which coverage in a layer is < 50% in any year, indicated here by a dash, are not reported.
Time Period
Depth layer 1956–2011 1967–2011 1983–2011 2004–2011
0–100 m 0.06 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.01 W m-2
0–300 m 0.18 W m-2 0.24 W m-2 0.19 W m-2
0–700 m – – 0.46 W m-2 0.30 W m-2
0–1800 m – – – 0.56 W m-2
You will note that the heat flux in the 0-100 m level declined almost 90% when the period 1983-2011 is compared with 2004-11
Large declines between these periods are also seen when the same time periods are compared for 0-300 and 0-700m.
These numbers show that Trenberth's idea of the missing heat going into the oceans is fanciful.
It is time to recognize that the output of the IPCC models is useless for forecasting purposes.
For forecasts of the possible coming cooling based on the natural quasi periodicities seen in the temperature data see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpg.blogspot.com

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 2:35 pm

AndyZ says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:29 pm
“Aren’t you implying”

All I am implying is that Richard cannot disregard the oceans when talking about warming.

August 2, 2014 2:42 pm

Mr Finn continues to assert that the oceans are warming. Unfortunately we have no means of knowing whether that is the case. The Argo buoys – the least ill-resolved evidence we have – show very little increase in ocean heat content in the past decade, though they are far too sparse to allow any safe conclusions to be drawn. The error margins are enormous.
If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.

Rising
August 2, 2014 2:43 pm

It used to be the average of five datasets, now it’s just RSS. Why? And it was 17y and 10 months 2 month ago also. Sure one can move the measured time to get a flat line once again, but won’t the new flat line be hotter than the first one. Hmmm?

John Finn
August 2, 2014 2:48 pm

CM writes

Mr Finn is also incorrect to say mentioning the central England temperature is “ridiculous”. CET is a reasonable indication of global trends: it is on the right latitude, and over the past two cycles of the PDO (i.e. 120 years) its trend is within one-hundredth of a degree of the global trend.

0
Fair enough, Christopher, but these are the CET trends for the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries.
1700-1800 -0.025 deg per decade (slight cooling
1800-1900 0.003 deg per decade ( flat)
1900-2000 0.065 deg per decade (warming)
So the 20th century warmed at 20 times the rate of the 19th century and most of that warming was in the last 30 or 40 years. There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.

August 2, 2014 2:51 pm

In answer to “Rising”, I provide a monthly update showing the first of the datasets to be available, which is RSS. I also provide monthly updates on the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets once the UAH value becomes available, and the trend on the mean of those two datasets is compared with the predictions of the IPCC in 1990 and in 2013. And at less regular intervals I provide updates on all five of the principal global-temperature datasets.
And what all these data show beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the rate at which the world has warmed has been very considerably below what the models had predicted. No amount of spin or diversion will alter that fact: nor, in the end, will even the Marxstream media be able to conceal it from the people.

Editor
August 2, 2014 2:52 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm

richard verney says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm
“It is because of pressure,”
..
If pressure makes things warmer, then…..

Pressure alone doesn’t make something warmer – If you add air to a car’s tire it will heat up, but eventually conduction will bring back to the ambient temperature. The better answer is “It’s because of adiabatic compression” – the change in temperature when a gas is compressed when no heat is added or removed.
On a planetary scale it’s why the troposphere cools as you climb a mountain.
On Venus, if you go high in the atmosphere at 1 bar, Earth’s surface pressure, the temperature above Venus will be warm, but tolerable. It’s only if you take a “handful” of that air and lower it to the surface that it becomes so hot.
I hate to suggest this link, but there’s a lot more at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 2:55 pm

Ric Werme says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure. Both the Earth and the Moon receive about the same amount of energy per sq m.

August 2, 2014 2:59 pm

Mr Finn continues to try to introduce diversions from the main point, which is that the world is not warming anything like as fast as the models had predicted. Now he attempts to say that there is no evidence of the Little Ice Age in the central England temperature record from 1700 to the present.
Sigh. The Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age, was from 1645-1715, almost all of it before the period ingeniously but misleadingly selected by Mr Finn. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate in the entire instrumental record was between 1694 and 1733, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C/century, or more than twice the fastest such rate measured since 1950. And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century. Both of these record high rates of increase occurred before the Industrial Revolution began. And both of them are mentioned in the head posting.

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 3:01 pm

John Finn:
In my post addressed to you, justaskin and H Grouse at August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am I wrote

Before global warming stopped you were happy to support the definition of global warming as being rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).

Thankyou for your reply at August 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm which begins saying

No I wasn’t, Richard. You are confusing me with AGW mainstream scientists. The temperature observations for the surface and atmosphere are certainly more accurate than OHC but they are a less reliable indicator of “global warming”. ARGO measurements show the oceans have continued to warm over the past 8 years or so. A quick ‘back of the envelope’ calculation suggests that the difference between incoming and outgoing energy is ~0.6 w/m2. Unfortunately because of problems with CERES data we can’t determine whether or not this is due to a TOA imbalance. (e.g. because of an enhanced ghg effect).

No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.
I would be grateful for any reference you can give me to your having disputed the definition of global warming prior to the cessation of global warming. I would especially appreciate this reference because this is the second WUWT thread where during this week you have adopted a definition that is not accepted as a method to pretend that global warming has not stopped.
You see, John Finn, I am familiar with warmunists changing their claims; e.g. anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) will cause heat waves, no cold spells, and AGW will cause droughts, no floods, and AGW will cause more storms, no less storms, and AGW will cause etc..
And warmunists always claim “We always said that”. So, please show where you said the definition of global warming was wrong prior to global warming having stopped.
Richard

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 3:06 pm

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm
There is abundant, overwhelming evidence not only of a Little Ice Age, but a Medieval Warm Period before it (warmer than the Modern Warm Period), a Dark Ages Cold Period before that, a Roman Warm Period before that (warmer than the Medieval WP), a Greek Dark Ages Cold Period before that, a Minoan Warm Period before that (warmer than the Roman WP), a cold period before that, an Egyptian Warm Period (about as warm as the Minoan), a cold period before that & the long Holocene Climatic Optimum before that (warmer than the Egyptian & Minoan WPs). Previous interglacials also show the same cycles, as of course so too do the longer glacial phases, but with temperature swings even greater.
Warming in the 18th century from the depths of the LIA (1690s) was more rapid than in the late 20th century, as also was the rate in the early 20th century. See the CET records below, bearing in mind that like all such climate “data” have been heavily stepped upon by trough-feeding, rent-seeking, scamming, CACA-spewing temperature “adjusters”. If properly adjusted for UHI, cleaner skies, etc, even the CET would probably show a warmer 1930s than 1990s (instead of its ostensible 0.49 degree average cooler 1931-40 v. 1991-2000, if my arithmetic be not in error), as is the case for reality in the USA.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/central-england-temperatures-runaway-warming-during-the-last-decade.html

August 2, 2014 3:08 pm

John Finn says:
There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.
That’s on your planet, John, where there probably isn’t evidence of a MWP either.
But here on Planet Earth, there was a very well documented LIA. It was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. If Mr Finn needs evidence, I can post plenty of links.
Lord Monckton is also correct when he notes that if the oceans were warming, the atmosphere would also be warming. But the ARGO buoy array — the most accurate measurements of ocean temperature available — show that at most depths the ocean is cooling. That is more empirical evidence showing that global warming has stopped.

August 2, 2014 3:09 pm

John Finn
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1700108
Henry says
You simply ignore the fact that recording- and calibration procedures have greatly improved during the past 5 decades. e.g. recording is now done automatically. Indeed, I have challenged [anyone] to show me a re-calibration certificate of a thermometer dated before 1945
Perhaps you John have one of those certificates that I do not know of?

August 2, 2014 3:10 pm

In answer to Mr Grouse, the Earth is cooler than the Moon because the Earth’s bond albedo is almost thrice that of the Moon, so that a greater fraction of incoming radiation is reflected harmlessly away.

August 2, 2014 3:16 pm

H Grouse says:
Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure.
Are you referring to the sunlit part of the moon? Or the dark part, with no sunlight?
Se the comment by Ric Werme, August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm.

Paul
August 2, 2014 3:17 pm

Monckton: If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.
So you mean the ENSO and PDO cycles have no impact on global temperatures? Surely atmospheric temperatures respond much faster to heat inputs (or imbalances) then the oceans do. How do you explain the spike in global surface temperatures in 1998? And it is precisely that spike that keeps regression lines flat for 17 years… Meanwhile, 2000-2010 was warmer than 1990-2000, which was warmer than 1980-1990.
Monckton: And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century
Now this is really cherry-picking data, isn’t it? Besides my previous comment that a particular location is not the globe, you could have easily started with a high year and gone out to a low year (say, 1830-1890), showing that global temperatures decreased at a record rate.

August 2, 2014 3:27 pm

Paul says:
it is precisely that spike that keeps regression lines flat for 17 years… Now this is really cherry-picking data, isn’t it?
Paul, a little history is in order: back in 1999, über-Warmist Phil Jones was interviewed. He was asked if global warming had stopped, since at that time there had been no warming for 2 years.
Jones replied that in order to answer that with statistical accuracy, global warming would have to remain stopped for at least fifteen years from 1997. No doubt Jones thought he was making a safe bet. But in the event, global warming did stop for the 15 years following Jones’ designated base year of 1997. And global warming still remains stopped. There has been no global warming since the Phil Jones’ selected base year of 1997.
Lately the alarmist crowd has been making the same point you did. They claim that 1997 was cherry-picked. Well, if it was, it was Phil Jones’ cherry-pick. The alarmist contingent would be whooping with joy if global warming had resumed.
They cannot have it both ways. The alarmist clique was silent during the 15 years following Jones’ starting year of 1997. It is only since the question has been answered with statistical significance that the alarmists began questioning 1997. But it was their baby all along. Now they have to live with it.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 3:29 pm

Paul says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Chris is not cherry picking, since the late 17th century was the depths of the Little Ice Age, from which period Earth has been recovering, ie getting warmer, although it is sure to get cold again, since the long term trend (at least 3000 years in length) is down & interglacials eventually end in a new glacial episode. Using 60-year PDO cycles, starting in 1690 or 1700 produces even more rapid warming, despite the remarkably cold years of 1709 & 1740.
Please bear in mind also that the Holocene has been a cool interglacial. The previous one, the Eemian (130 to 114 Ka), & the long MIS 11 or Holsteinian (~400 Ka) were a lot warmer, without benefit of a Neanderthal or H. heidelbergensis Industrial Age.

Warmist Claptrap
August 2, 2014 3:29 pm

in Monckton’s conjecture, that “the quantum resonance by which CO2 molecules emit heat directly when they interact with photons in CO2’s absorption bands, notably at 14.99 microns. It’s like turning millions of little radiators on. The more radiators, the more interactions, the more heat.”, does rely upon Fourier’s hypothesis, using Wien’s Displacement Law. It is a bit tenuous, however Lord Monckton has used this explanation in the past, but as I will explain, this is an error of logic.
Fourier stated … “The mobility of the air, which is rapidly displaced in every direction [upward by evaporation and convection, sideways by advection, downward by precipitation and subsidence] and which rises when heated [convection], and the radiation of non-luminous heat [châleur obscure: i.e. infrared radiation] into the air, diminish the intensity of the [warming] effects which would take place in a transparent and static atmosphere [evaporation and convection cool the surface, for instance], but do not entirely change their character.
The decrease of the heat in the higher regions of the air [the upper atmosphere] does not cease, and the temperature can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light [i.e. visible radiation] finds less resistance in penetrating the air than in repassing into the air when converted [on striking the Earth’s surface, by Wien’s displacement law] into non-luminous heat [châleur obscure: i.e. infrared radiation].”
Monckton asserts then that, “Any honest reader of this passage will recognize that Fourier is indeed here positing the greenhouse effect.”
This is an error of logic. Greenhouses heat up by the space enclosed by the glass stopping heat escaping due to prevention of convection, and Fourier states that in the atmosphere, convection occurs and indeed that this then causes the surface to cool. So then it is not logical to assert that there is a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, at the same time as there is convection occurring. No greenhouse effect (even in a greenhouse) has anything whatsoever to do with concentrations of CO2 in any such enclosed space. CO2 cannot emit more energy than it absorbs, else we should all be running our “clunkers” upon it, free of charge, and using CO2 to heat our bathwater and our homes.
So the Fourier was not positing “the greenhouse effect” at all, at least not in the passage which Monckton quotes in his explanations. Monckton often asserts that antagonists overlook the wavelength dependence of the interactions between infrared radiation and greenhouse-gas molecules, but if we look at an absorption wavelength chart, for instance in the book, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate [Roger G. Barry, Richard J Chorley – fp.1968] we can see that the absorption bands for CO2 occur at wavelengths for which there is virtually no energy being emitted from The Earth itself, or indeed incoming from The Sun. How then do these interactions take place, whether there is indeed convection or even if there is not?
Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png
There is zero empirical evidence of any so called “greenhouse effect” as it has been called in these pages. Given that CO2 interactions occur at different wavelengths to that of both incoming and outgoing IR Radiation, it seems unlikely then that CO2 is any kind of candidate at all, for any significant variation in the overall heat content in the Earth’s atmosphere, especially when you consider its minute concentration. CO2 is a rare gas.

Bill Parsons
August 2, 2014 3:30 pm

profitup10 says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:29 am
It is time for the people to CLOSE THE EPA before they bankrupt the people and industries.

I don’t think you “close” a “giant vampire squid (etc)”; you have to kill it.

mjc
August 2, 2014 3:31 pm

“Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Sigh. The Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age, was from 1645-1715, almost all of it before the period ingeniously but misleadingly selected by Mr Finn. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate in the entire instrumental record was between 1694 and 1733, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C/century, or more than twice the fastest such rate measured since 1950. And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century. Both of these record high rates of increase occurred before the Industrial Revolution began. And both of them are mentioned in the head posting.”
And since that area was not depopulated, due to everyone succumbing to heat, nor turned into a barren wasteland, it’s only logical to assume that in the period BEFORE the rapid rise, it must have been colder…or ‘bad things’ would have happened and made life there impossible.
These jokers seem to forget the fact that during these ‘unprecedented’ events, life went on. If we are to buy what they are selling, there shouldn’t have been anyone left alive in the area to maintain the temperature record.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 3:36 pm

Warmist Claptrap says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm
IMO CO2 can produce a negligible GHE in dry air. Since water vapor is about 100 times more common over much of the globe than CO2 molecules & because the absorption bands of the two GHGs overlap, any effect from increasing CO2 concentration from three to four molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules would be swamped out in the moist tropics. However at the dry poles, such an increase might have an effect (albeit scarcely measurable), but of course not during the long sunless winters.

August 2, 2014 3:36 pm

My view is that much of the variation in the global temperature anomaly from which we have somewhat reliable data, which is from 1850 until now has been driven by variations in the frequency and intensity of El Niños and that these variations in ENSO are mainly caused by natural drivers.
With an Artificial Neural Network that I created I’ve been able to establish that the drivers of ENSO variations are dominated by a combinations of tidal and solar electromagnetic forces and I have also been able to establish by which mechanism these forces affects ENSO.
I have just finished the creation of a Power Point Presentations which describes my findings in detail, that I can show to others.
Given in my view the importance of what I have found and the implication of this finding, both in forecasting ENSO and for its importance in the AGW debate, I would like to make my findings public in such a way as to make as much damage to the CAGW theory and subsequent policy as possible.
I would appreciate any ideas how to do this!

rogerknights
August 2, 2014 3:37 pm

Arno! Please break your text blocks into paragraphs!
[If a writer is submitting from Facebook or similar limited screens and platforms, a “carriage return” (paragraph) is a “submit & send right now” signal.
However, your request is noted, but we cannot assume what editing is required. .mod]

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 3:39 pm

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:16 pm
See my response to Mr Werme at 2:55 pm

Matthew R Marler
August 2, 2014 3:41 pm

justaskin: So is there something special about the current pause?
Yes. Influential scientists predicted an increase in temp of about 0.2C/decade for this period. They furthermore warned that it was necessary for us to switch off of fossil fuels in a big hurry; indeed, some are still warning us of this necessity, despite the obvious failure of their prediction.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 3:46 pm

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm
” global warming would have to remain stopped for at least fifteen years”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend

August 2, 2014 3:46 pm

H Grouse says:
See my response to Mr Werme…
I did. Your point?

James Abbott
August 2, 2014 3:49 pm

Lord M must be keen on recycling as he keeps going back to use the same article – with the same cherry picking of CET data.
The RSS is one data set that is being used to produce the longest pause.
Yet he himself posted a quite good article on this site a few days ago showing that based on 5 major data sets the pause started around 2001/2, not 1996.
Which is it ?

Warmist Claptrap
August 2, 2014 3:53 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:36 pm
” IMO CO2 can produce a negligible GHE ”
But this is my point though. There may be a miniscule effect of some sort, but it cannot be logically called a Greenhouse Effect, for there is no “greenhouse”. There is however energy loss and transference due to convection, as Fourier said, and Monckton quoted previously, yet a greenhouse, a real greenhouse warms, because it largely prevents convection heat losses.
Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them,
Again look at the chart, and tell me what is the mechanism for CO2 absorbing energy, from a band where there is practically none, and then amplifying that energy and re-emitting it in another band where we cannot seem to measure that effect?
Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png

Andrew
August 2, 2014 3:54 pm

“It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..”
*facepalm
“Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?”
*Bigger facepalm – the oceans have 1,000,000x the heat capacity and so if this was true it would be a FANTASTIC thing – gerbil worming fixed for a billion years.

Matthew R Marler
August 2, 2014 3:55 pm

John Finn: While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.
The threat that Hansen, the IPCC and others have been warning us of is “global warming”, not “heat accumulation in the deep ocean”, for which there is no evidence implicating humans or CO2 in any way. The threatened “warming” is is not occurring . The fact of non-warming over a long time span of high CO2 concentration when warming was confidently predicted (it’s not too extreme to say “stridently predicted”) is serious evidence that the people doing the warning did not know what they thought that they knew.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 3:55 pm

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm
“Your point?”
I guess I’ll have to repeat, even though it’s in the whole thread.
The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth

The response was, Venus is warmer due to pressure.
That argument is countered with, the pressure on Earth is higher than on the Moon.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 4:05 pm

Warmist Claptrap says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm
I certainly agree that “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer, but “upwelling photon capture & partial release downward” isn’t as handy, if more precise. Maybe “hooked blanket with holes in it” effect would be more accurate.

Editor
August 2, 2014 4:08 pm

Rob says: “The PDO has all but destroyed El Niño.”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, not a driver. See:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/the-201415-el-nino-part-5-the-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-enso/

Matthew R Marler
August 2, 2014 4:13 pm

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, thank you again for your good article and patient responses to questions and critiques.

August 2, 2014 4:17 pm

Bad news for Global Cooling Deniers.
And even more bad news, the EL Nino that supposed to be super won’t turn out at all.

James Abbott
August 2, 2014 4:18 pm

Warmist Claptrap said
“Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them”
So what’s your reference for that pearl ?

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 4:19 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm
IMO, both oscillations are part of the same cyclical sloshing, ocean-atmosphere-lithosphere process, ultimately primarily driven by the solar activity, which has its own drivers.

August 2, 2014 4:29 pm

“Warmist claptrap” is trying to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect by quibbling about its terminology. The effect is real: get over it, or go back to the “slayers'” website from which you have been quoting. The existence of the effect (whatever one calls it) has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment.
As for “Paul”, he seems to think that to ask the question “What was the fastest rate of warming over a 100-year period in the instrumental record?” is to cherry-pick. Nice try, but no. And that period, as the head posting and my previous comment made plain, was from 1663-1762, before the Industrial Revolution.. There has been no centennial warming rate as fast as that since.
“Paul” is also middled about the effect of ocean temperatures on atmospheric temperatures. I had made the point that if the oceans were really warming the atmosphere were warming too, but it is not. “Paul” then asked whether I denied that ENSO warming of the oceans can warm the atmosphere. Well, obviously not, since that fact merely reinforces my original point that if the oceans are warming they will warm the atmosphere: and the atmosphere is not, repeat not, warming – and certainly not warming at anything like the rate the failed computer models had predicted.
There have been some ingenious attempts at diverting attention away from the main point. Mr Abbott, for instance, asks a second question about why I update the RSS record every month, even though the question is answered in the head posting and again in this thread. All these attempts to derail the simple message have failed as much as the models themselves have failed. The game is up.

August 2, 2014 4:33 pm

Thanks, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
You wrote:
In answer to Mr Valencia, one can go back 13 years 4 months and still find a zero trend on the NCDC data.
Yes, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/ shows -0.01°C/Decade from 2001 to 2014.
I shall include this in my pages.

dp
August 2, 2014 4:37 pm

Lord Monckton’s method of seeking the greatest expanse in time between today and some point in history where the trend is zero got me to wondering. Why zero? What happens if we look for non-zero trend lengths? Next question – is this really not cherry picking? I’m not claiming it is but I also don’t see how it is not.

papiertigre
August 2, 2014 4:44 pm

The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the [sun facing] surface of Earth
I’ll take this one fellas. Albedo. The moon absorbes 88% of it’s incident solar energy, converting it to surface heat. The Earth absorbs 63%.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 4:44 pm

dp says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm
IMO, his procedure is the opposite of cherry picking, ie letting the numbers speak for themselves to reveal their own start point, rather than choosing one to serve one’s own ends. Chris looks to see how far back in time there has been no statistically significant warming, to include actual cooling.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 4:47 pm

papiertigre says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm
” Albedo.”
..
That doesn’t explain why the surface of Venus is warmer than the sun facing surface of Mercury…


(PS……..fi this were Poker, you’d know my hole card is the distance difference between Mercury and Venus)

Niff
August 2, 2014 5:00 pm

Its interesting that none of the trends shown have the observed even WITHIN the predicted ranges right from the start. One wonders how anyone supporting AGW could hold their heads up.

tom s
August 2, 2014 5:00 pm

Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christopher, even though the alarmists state there has been an increase in extreme weather the data show otherwise, from tornadoes to hurricanes to drought and flooding. Globally there is not sig trend in any of these parameters. I know you’re just bolstering your argument which is fine and I agree with, but let’s not give them any undeserved, albeit, clandestine credibility.

John Finn
August 2, 2014 5:01 pm

Are the oceans warming? This post by Willis Eschenbach who analysed ARGO data between 2005 and 2012 suggests they are
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/
Willis writes

The trend in this data (6.9 ± 0.6 e+22 joules per decade) agrees quite well with the trend in the Levitus OHC data, which is about 7.4 ± 0.8 e+22 joules per decade.

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm
John Finn says:
There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.
That’s on your planet, John, where there probably isn’t evidence of a MWP either. But here on Planet Earth, there was a very well documented LIA. It was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene.

You’ve either not followed the discussion or you’re having trouble understanding. I can’t be bothered explaining it all to you but my point is that the CET doesn’t provide any evidence for a LIA – at least not one that lasted through the 18th and 19th centuries since the CE temperature trends for both those centuries are flat.

Lord Monckton is also correct when he notes that if the oceans were warming, the atmosphere would also be warming.

Not true. Roy Spencer has shown clearly how ocean heating can occur without the atmosphere warming.

richardscourtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm
John Finn:
No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.

I have posted many times on WUWT but never on JoNova’s blog. I doubt if I’ve provided a definition for global warming (your other point). I’ve always assumed the “sceptic” side were insistent that OHC was a more important measure. Roger Pielke was constantly making this very point. No matter – it is the most important measure and according to ARGO the oceans are continuing to accumulate heat.
On a separate point you seem to imply that I am a “warmunist” – whatever that is supposed to mean. I think I can guess so let me, then, draw your attention to this WUWT post from November 2009.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Scroll down the page and you will find this paragraph

Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

So, in December 2004 (5 years before climategate) I was challenging Michael Mann about the “hide the decline” trick. Richard, I try to attack the “warmunists” where they are weak. The warming may not be as great as predicted (or projected) but it is still happening. To keep arguing that it isn’t is inviting trouble further down the line. Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer but it shouldn’t be extreme or catastrophic and may even be beneficial.

M Courtney
August 2, 2014 5:09 pm

H Grouse says at August 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Surface of moon (with no atmosphere) facing the sun is 123 degrees C.
Nowhere on Earth (with atmosphere) get this hot.
Surface of Mercury (with no atmosphere) facing the sun 426 degrees C
Surface of Venus (with atmosphere) 462 degrees C.

Nope.
Just Google it.
“Temperature of the moon” gives try it

“During the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius). The Earth, which has an atmosphere, has much more comfortable temperatures..

So an atmosphere makes a big difference to the stability of the temperature of a planet.
And a mini-planet like Mercury can not hold an atmosphere (not enough mass, thus not enough gravity).
So it can’t keep the energy that happens to irradiate the sphere.
So, on average it is colder.

Jimbo
August 2, 2014 5:12 pm

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 about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The new divergence problem. If it cools then it is all over. Or they will claim global cooling is caused by global warming.

August 2, 2014 5:13 pm

Warmist Claptrap says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Monckton often asserts that antagonists overlook the wavelength dependence of the interactions between infrared radiation and greenhouse-gas molecules, but if we look at an absorption wavelength chart, for instance in the book, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate [Roger G. Barry, Richard J Chorley – fp.1968] we can see that the absorption bands for CO2 occur at wavelengths for which there is virtually no energy being emitted from The Earth itself, or indeed incoming from The Sun. How then do these interactions take place, whether there is indeed convection or even if there is not?

That spectrum is the IR as observed from space, the reason there is little energy emitted in the 15micron band is because it has been absorbed by CO2!
Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 5:16 pm

M Courtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm
“So an atmosphere makes a big difference to the stability”
Venus has an atmosphere, Mercury does not. Mercury is cooler
Earth has an atmosphere, the Moon does not…The Earth is cooler.
Earth has higher albedo than Moon…….Venus has higher albedo than Mercury
And I still haven’t played my hole card !!!!

Bill Illis
August 2, 2014 5:18 pm

The latest analysis of ocean heat content from the surface to the bottom, is a rise of only 0.2 W/m2/year. That’s nothing. It’s within the error margin, within what might be considered as simply a random variable.
The atmosphere/land/ice is only accumulating another 0.035 W/m2/year.
The original climate theory projections was that the total of these two numbers would be between 1.2 W/m2/year and 1.8 W/m2/year.
So, no temperature increase, no (or only 15% of the projected) energy accumulation and what do we have.
A falsified theory. No ifs and or buts. It’s done.
There is just too much egg-on-the-face for the pro-warmers to climb down now, but they have to at some point very very soon. And all you pro-warmers out there need to start preparing for that now.

M Courtney
August 2, 2014 5:18 pm

My Gosh, H Grouse.
I’ve just seen further down the comments that you’ve not just got the numbers wrong – you’ve also oversimplified the physics.
Temperature is a result of more than one factor!
☺It’s not just pressure of the atmosphere.
☺It’s not just the proximity to the star (assuming the same star).
It is both -(and maybe the composition of the atmosphere – but we have no evidence of the “maybe”).
So Mercury and Venus do not prove anything about Earth. There are too many variables,
Yet only Earth matters to us locals.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 5:23 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Albedos:
Mercury
0.142 geometric
0.068 Bond
Venus
0.67 geometric
0.90 Bond
Moon
0.113 geometric
0.123 Bond
Earth
0.367 geometric
0.306 Bond

Jimbo
August 2, 2014 5:25 pm

Skeptical Science asserted some years back that co2 was then (and now?) the main driver of global warming. It looks like the driver was thrown out of the driver’s seat. Embarrassing shite.

“…While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come….”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

If 17 years is short term then so is everything they claim of less that 17 years. A hurricane here, and a drought there.

M Courtney
August 2, 2014 5:27 pm

H Grouse, Google temperatures of planets.
You have got a little confused between average temperatures and actual temperatures (which matter).
If the temperature varies between 123 Celsius and -233 Celsius then the average has a completely different significance than to variation between 23 Celsius and 13 Celsius.
The average is not the metric to use as it is affected by:
☻The energy input.
☻The energy output.
☺The duration in the atmosphere.
And the last is measured by – The range of temperatures.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 5:29 pm

M Courtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:18 pm
“So Mercury and Venus do not prove anything about Earth”

I’m not looking to prove anything about Earth, I’m just trying to understand why the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury.
Pressure doesn’t explain it (see Earth/Moon analogy)
Albedo doesn’t explain it (see milodonharlani numbers posted at 4:47 pm0

And I still have my hole card to play !!!!

August 2, 2014 5:30 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm…
You decided to select UAH. Fine. But as Lord Monckton noted, there are problems with that.
I prefer the best satellite record, which is RSS.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 5:35 pm

M Courtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:27 pm
“You have got a little confused between average temperatures ”
Mercury sun facing side 427 degrees C dark side -173 degrees C….average 127 degrees C
Venus surface temp is 462 degrees C everywhere.

Mmmmmmm….thanks for making this even more interesting .

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 5:36 pm

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm
“I prefer the best satellite record, which is RSS.”
Best?…..I contend that neither one is any better than the other

John Finn
August 2, 2014 5:39 pm

Before responding to any more posts below perhaps I should say that I am very familiar with the CET record and am aware there is a sharp rise in temperatures between ~1690 and ~1730 (so *sigh* all you like, Christopher Monckton). However, I also know that the precision and accuracy of late 17th century/early 18th century readings was not too great (temperatures were recorded to the nearest 0.5 degree). Also, as far as I was aware, the LIA did not only cover the maunder minimum period. The 18th and 19th century trends are virtually flat. There are fluctuations – probably due to ocean influences – but they are cyclical and pretty much sum to zero (look at a CET graph),
Right …

milodonharlani says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:06 pm
John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Warming in the 18th century from the depths of the LIA (1690s) was more rapid than in the late 20th century, as also was the rate in the early 20th century. See the CET records below,

There was very little warming from the start of the 18th century up to ~1900. That’s 200 years. Check it out – graphically and/or by linear regression.
So are you saying the LIA ended in 1700 or 1730?

Bill Illis
August 2, 2014 5:40 pm

The average Earth surface temperature rises 10C from the morning sunrise to mid-afternoon high temperature around 3:30 pm or in 9.5 hours.
How much would that temperature rise if the average time to the peak temperature of the day was 4,617 hours like it is on Venus.
If you crunch the numbers on how solar joules are accumulating each hour, the Earth surface temperature would rise to 450C ( the same temperature as Venus) if the rotation rate gave us days which were 243 days long like they are on Venus. That is real physics where joules accumulate and drawdown over time as they do in the real universe.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 5:45 pm

Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm
The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.
That would be nice if the Earth did the same thing.

Warmist Claptrap
August 2, 2014 5:46 pm

James Abbott says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Where did this “pearl” come from?
From Fact, Logic and Law.
it is as I stated above – – –
“yet a greenhouse, a real greenhouse warms, because it largely prevents convection heat losses.
Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them.
The second statement is a corollary of the first.
Yet this is not how the air in the free atmosphere of the Planet Earth behaves, because it is not a closed construction with walls and a roof. The simplistic greenhouse analogy is fatuous and in fact a logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and it is a causal oversimplification, and a Ludic fallacy into the bargain. In Law we should say, onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, that the burden of proof lies in the proponent of some hypothesis. Where is the evidence that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse does?
It is this widely held erroneous assumption which gives rise to the vain hope that humans might control the temperature of a Planet, by altering the amount some parameter. In a greenhouse, we we might increase the ventilation, and allow heat to escape by convection. We cannot do this in a Planet’s atmosphere, because it is already open all the way to outer space.
It is for you, the proponents of the Earth Atmosphere “CO2 greenhouse” conjecture, to provide repeatable empirical evidence to support this hypothesis, and with logically sound explanation. This is not really a question of complex atmospheric physics at all. Rather it is a series of fallacies of logic and faulty syllogisms, failures of inductive reasoning.

pat
August 2, 2014 5:48 pm

naturally, the temperature data doesn’t figure at all at NYT. they have other things on their mind :
3 Aug: NYT: Shattering Myths to Help the Climate
Economic View by Robert H. Frank
(A version of this article appears in print on August 3, 2014, on page BU6 of the New York edition)
Each new climate-change study seems more pessimistic than the last. This May and June, for example, were the hottest ones on record for the planet. Storms and droughts occur with increasing frequency. Glaciers are rapidly retreating, portending rising seas that could eventually displace hundreds of millions of people.
Effective countermeasures now could actually ward off many of these threats at relatively modest cost. Yet despite a robust scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are at the root of the problem, legislation to curb them has gone nowhere in Congress….
Myth 2: Slowing the pace of climate change would be prohibitively difficult
The most effective remedy would be a carbon tax, which would raise the after-tax price of goods in rough proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. Gasoline would become more expensive, piano lessons would not…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/upshot/shattering-myths-to-help-the-climate.html?_r=0

Bill Illis
August 2, 2014 5:55 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm
The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.
——————
What would happen on Earth if the surface temperature on the day-side rose to 450C. The Oceans boil, the gases boil out of the land surface, a huge thick atmosphere results. The winds from the day-side to the night-side pick up substantially and the huge thick atmosphere provides the same temperature anywhere on the planet. Just like on Venus.

August 2, 2014 5:58 pm

H Grouse says:
The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth…

1. Unlike Mercury, Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which smooths out the diurnal ∆T.
2. Earth has an extremely dense atmosphere compared with the Moon.
Therefore, neither comparison applies.
=====================
John Finn,
The Little Ice Age [LIA] was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene. That fact is reflected in ice cores and in contemporary accounts. Pretending the LIA didn’t happen is crazy.
The planet has been warming as it naturally emerges from the LIA. Any other explanation for the warming needs supporting evidence, in the form of verifiable, testable measurements showing that the fraction of a degree warming attributed to AGW is not due to some other cause. AGW is the alarmists’ conjecture, and they have to defend it. But so far, their entire defense has been in the form of assertions. We need more than that, if we are expected to spend $Trillions on a wild goose chase.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 5:59 pm

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
No, I’m saying that within cold periods there are intervals of rapid warming, as for instance during the Dark Ages Cold Period, which saw the rapid Sui-Tang warming, before the Medieval Warm Period. It’s the same as secular & cyclical trends in the stock market. Often during secular down or up trends, there are powerful counter trends before the dominant trend returns.
The LIA lasted until around 1850, when temperatures regained the long term trend line, which is down. But its trough was the 1690s during the Maunder Minimum, followed by a rapid rebound, followed by a return to the secular cold trend, especially during the Dalton Minimum.
The point is that there is nothing in the least bit unusual about 20th century warming. Indeed, the rates of warming in the pre-CO2 cycle, c. 1927-46, was about the same as during the supposed CO2 cycle, c. 1977-96. A plateau to cool cycle, c. 1947-76, occurred in between these two natural warming cycles, just as is happening again now. There was also a cycle of rapid warming in the late 19th century, coming out of the LIA, followed by another such flat to cooling phase, all related to natural oceanic oscillations, primarily driven by the sun.

Editor
August 2, 2014 6:01 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Ric Werme says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure. Both the Earth and the Moon receive about the same amount of energy per sq m.

First, thank you to all my “assistants.”
The Earth and Moon are so different I cringe whenever someone tries to compare them. There was that awful paper a few years that tried and got far more press and commentary than it should have. I may have repressed enough of my memory of it so I’ll have trouble finding it again.
The other comments have provided many of the reasons. I don’t think one of the important answers has come out – the Moon has a synodic day (the time from noon to noon) of 29.5 days. Imagine what Death Valley might become 14 Earth days of sunlight.
Next, note the massive role that convection plays in tempering the Earth’s temperature. A typical clear day here in New Hampshire starts out with a temperature inversion and a thin cold layer of air in the valleys. As the Sun heats the land, conduction heats the air and things warm up quickly. Soon the air column develops instability and convection mixes the surface air with thousands of feet of air above ground. Wind picks up, as the wind aloft can readily come down to the surface due to convection trying to produce neutral buoyancy. This much larger air mass greatly slows the temperature climb, but we typically hit the highest temperature of the day in the afternoon after the peak heating of our 24 hour day.
This is so utterly different than conditions on the Moon that there’s no reason to compare them. Our atmosphere has much more in common with places like Venus, Jupiter, and Titan than it does with our Moon’s infinitesimal atmosphere.
Apollo era joke wrt the Lunar Lander’s descent engine – “First they bring an atmosphere and then they pollute it!”


H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:29 pm

And I still have my hole card to play !!!!

Wow, what an opening. 🙂

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 6:01 pm

Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm
“What would happen on Earth”

Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth. I’m in search of the explanation why Venus is so much warmer than Mercury.
The sun facing surface of Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you use the “average” temperature of Mercury, you only make the problem worse. If you talk about albedo, Venus is HIGHER than Mercury……and the pressure argument doesn’t hold

pat
August 2, 2014 6:02 pm

New Zealand Herald makes a bold claim in the headline:
3 Aug: New Zealand Herald: Tuvalu climate change family win NZ residency appeal
A Tuvalu family has been granted New Zealand residency after claiming it would be affected by climate change if it returned home.
It is the first successful application for residency on humanitarian grounds in which climate change has featured, but the Immigration and Protection Tribunal said the family had strong ties to New Zealand.
Environmental law expert Vernon Rive said the tribunal would be keen to avoid opening the floodgates to other climate change refugee claims…
Immigration lawyer Trevor Zohs, who represented the family with Carole Curtis, told the Herald on Sunday the effects of climate change should be recognised.
“A lot of people are affected by illness when they go back, they get sick from drinking polluted water. The island is porous so even when the water is not flooding, it penetrates the rocks under the land.”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303331
elsewhere, it’s a differenty story!
3 Aug NewsTalk: Tuvalu family’s residency not standard for climate refugees
The granting of residency to a Tuvalu family who claimed to be affected by climate change won’t pave the way for climate refugees.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal took the family’s strong ties to New Zealand into account, when accepting their residency application.
But the residency was granted on humanitarian grounds – not because of climate change or refugee status…
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/220236564-tuvalu-family-s-residency-not-standard-for-climate-refugees

Eliza
August 2, 2014 6:06 pm

The trick with Mosher is not to reply to his postings. Im amazed none of you have coped on to this. LOL idem with Zeke ect… Their trick is to divert attention from fatal AGW postings ie like no temperature trends, INCREASING NH ice etc..

Bill Illis
August 2, 2014 6:07 pm

H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm
“What would happen on Earth”

Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth. I’m in search of the explanation why Venus is so much warmer than Mercury.
The sun facing surface of Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you use the “average” temperature of Mercury, you only make the problem worse. If you talk about albedo, Venus is HIGHER than Mercury……and the pressure argument doesn’t hold
———————-
Mercury lost its atmosphere because it is has so little gravity and it is too close to the Sun.
On the Earth surface, the atmospheric collision rate is 7 billion collisions per second right now at surface pressure.
If Earth had a retro-grade spin rate like Venus, the atmosphere would accumulate something like 92 extra bars of pressure and the collision rate would rise to 1.0 trillion collisions per second. ie, it would take forever (well 200 days or so) for solar energy to be emitted back to space after it reached the planet versus the current Earth situation where it is only 42 hours and on Mercury it is only about 1 minute.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 6:20 pm

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
I might add that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by spectacular solar activity, ie the 1859 Carrington super flare & the eerie Northern Lights at the US “Civil War” battlefield of Fredericksburg in December 1862, which were seen far into the South. Telegraphy was effected.
This level of activity stands in stark contrast to the quiescent sun of the Spörer, Maunder & Dalton Minima of the Little Ice Age.

Editor
August 2, 2014 6:21 pm

Werner Brozek says:
> August 2, 2014 at 8:28 am
>
> Does WFT use a different method for calculations? The reason I ask is
> that WFT gives a positive slope of “slope = 1.25851e-05 per year” for
> 214 months. However the slopes is negative
> “slope = -0.000162934 per year” for 213 months.
Me too. I downloaded the data and applied the spreadsheet slope() function. I get +0.0000124318 per year from October 1996. So the cooling/zero trend only goes back to November, i.e. 213 months. I infer that the problem is that Lord Monckton used a spreadsheet (or whatever program) that displays 4, or fewer, digits after the decimal point. In that case, one would see zero as the result at October 1996. I would call the string at 213 months.

Jeff Alberts
August 2, 2014 6:26 pm

dp says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Lord Monckton’s method of seeking the greatest expanse in time between today and some point in history where the trend is zero got me to wondering. Why zero? What happens if we look for non-zero trend lengths? Next question – is this really not cherry picking? I’m not claiming it is but I also don’t see how it is not.

Whether or not it’s cherry picking seems irrelevant, since there is no global temperature. It’s essentially an “angels on the head of a pin” argument.

August 2, 2014 6:26 pm

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 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.

These data are unreliable as shown below and shouldn’t be used.
See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf
From the Introduction:
“Up to 1722 available instrumental records fail to overlap and Manley needed to use non-instrumental weather diaries and refer to the instrumental series for Utrecht compiled by Labtijn (1945) in order to make the monthly CET series complete. Between 1723 and the 1760s there were no gaps in the composite instrumental records, but the observations generally were taken in unheated rooms rather than with a truly outdoor exposure. Manley (1952) used a few outdoor temperatures, observations of snow or sleet, and likely temperatures given the wind direction, to establish relationships between the unheated room and outdoor temperatures: these relationships were used to adjust the monthly unheated room data. Daily temperatures in unheated rooms are, however, not reliably convertable to daily outdoor values because of the slow thermal response of the rooms. For this reason no daily series truly representative of CET can begin before about 1770.”

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 6:29 pm

Phil. says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Still more reliable than the CACA practice of interpolating imaginary temperatures & keeping alive fictional zombie stations, which can “record” whatever the high priests want the entrails to say.

Bill H
August 2, 2014 6:32 pm

I was just looking at the sea surface temps and noted the warm pool has almost disappeared again in region 3-4 while region 4 remains cool. Looks like the heat has again gone missing and the threat of El Nino is again El NADA….
We are again looking at going negative on the ENSO scale.
I am not so sure about the presumption Monckton and others have made about having an El Nino.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 6:41 pm

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm
” *1Unlike Mercury, Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which smooths out the diurnal ∆T.”
The smoothing out on Venus does not explain why Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you smooth out the difference between the sun facing side of Mercury with the dark side, the “average” temperature of Mercury drops 300 degrees C. The temperature on Venus is still HOTTER than when the sun is directly overhead on the surface of Mercury.
“2. Earth has an extremely dense atmosphere compared with the Moon.”
..
And Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Mercury. That just makes the analogy even better.

Tanya Aardman
August 2, 2014 6:42 pm

The Pause will be old enough to Vote soon

August 2, 2014 6:42 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:42 pm
Mr Finn continues to assert that the oceans are warming. Unfortunately we have no means of knowing whether that is the case. The Argo buoys – the least ill-resolved evidence we have – show very little increase in ocean heat content in the past decade, though they are far too sparse to allow any safe conclusions to be drawn. The error margins are enormous.
If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.

This is a point I have challenged warmists on several times, and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. If the CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping additional infrared energy, how does it miraculously get sucked into the ocean without first warming the atmosphere itself?

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 6:47 pm

Ric Werme says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm
“The Earth and Moon are so different”
Yes they are.
However, you have not answered the question (or have simply not paid attention to the thread.)
I want to know why the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.
The differences between Venus and Mercury are very similar to the differences between the Earth and the Moon.

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 6:50 pm

Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm
“Mercury lost its atmosphere”

That fact does not explain why the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.

August 2, 2014 6:58 pm

Walter Dnes says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm
Me too. I downloaded the data and applied the spreadsheet slope() function. I get +0.0000124318 per year from October 1996.
I took another look at the graph and it clearly says 0.00/cent, which is of course 0.0000/year. And as it turns out, anything below 0.00005 becomes 0.0000. In my posts, I have decided that the slope must be negative for my start year, however to my knowledge, this has never been defined by anyone that it must be this way.
I now believe this is a judgement call and either 213 or 214 months can be easily defended in this case.

Douglas Proctor
August 2, 2014 7:01 pm

It’s the rotation speed of the planet that matters – determines how much sunlight hits an area

mellyrn
August 2, 2014 7:23 pm

H Grouse says, The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth
The response was, Venus is warmer due to pressure.
That argument is countered with, the pressure on Earth is higher than on the Moon.

[facepalm]
The relationship between pressure and temperature in the atmosphere is nice and linear — but only as long as the atmosphere is thick ENOUGH. Ever look at a chart of a “standard atmosphere”?
http://atmos.caf.dlr.de/projects/scops/sciamachy_book/sciamachy_book_figures/chapter_1/fig_1_2.jpg
or do your own search on the phrase, “standard atmosphere”. You’ll get much the same picture, though.
Notice the lovely linearity down near the surface. Notice that when the air gets seriously thin — like Mars, say, or the exosphere of the Moon — the relationship is all over the place. You need to ignore this in order to make your argument.
Nor is mellyrn nearly as muddled about Venus as Sv. Monckton and H Grouse appear to be as to why it’s so cold at the top of Mt Everest compared to how hot it is at the bottom of Death Valley, even though Mt Everest is almost 9 degrees — almost 10% — closer to the equator than Death Valley is. It’s supposed to get warmer as you move from the poles towards the equator, right? So, why’s Mt Everest colder, so much colder?
It’s the atmospheric pressure — Death Valley’s air pressure is TRIPLE that of the peak of Mt Everest, and therefore is much warmer despite being so much farther north. And, Sv. Monckton, the temperature of Venus at 49 km altitude — the point at which the atmospheric pressure drops to EQUAL that of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level (and obtw, did either of you notice that Venus has no “sea” level?) — is a mere 337K (not 737K) which is EXACTLY what you get when you do the inverse-square math for the incoming energy and then the fourth-root S-B math for the associated temperature and compare pressure apples to pressure apples. No accounting for chemistry of the atmosphere at all, no GHG effect seen despite all that CO2.
Albedo, you say? Then it’s a magical albedo, that just perfectly offsets your alleged GHG effect. Interesting point: since Venus is covered in clouds and not by a solid roof, the albedo effect must be inversely related to altitude. Surely you’ve flown enough to notice that as the plane approaches the tops of the clouds, it gets lighter? This is because light (energy) is penetrating the thinner, upper layers. But if you do the same inverse-square/S-B math to compare Earth at, say, 0.5atm, 0.4atm, or 0.2atm with equivalent altitudes on Venus, the higher altitudes, where there should be LESS albedo offset and therefore more CO2-dominated warming, it’s actually slightly COOLER up there than the simple math calls for. So, sir, somehow your albedo, while perfect at 49 km to offset the GHG effect, is even MORE effective up where there is actually LESS of it. Odd.
The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.
The temperature at the surface of the Earth is 1.5degC in the morning, 1.5degC at noon, 1.5degC at sunset, and 1.5degC at midnight, and 1.5degC at the north pole, winter or summer.
The surface of the Earth is, of course, the lithosphere, known to us airbreathing chauvinists as “the bottom of the ocean”.
Again, an effect of high pressure. Though, since the one is a liquid and the other a gas, their actual temperatures do not directly compare; instead, we are here comparing the STABILITY of the temperatures.
(And now I’m afraid I’ve confused H Grouse by, in one case, comparing atmosphere to atmosphere, in the matter of actual temperature; and in the other comparing atmosphere to hydrosphere, in the matter of -stability- of temperature. If anyone else sees a problem with how I’ve written, do let me know.)

August 2, 2014 7:40 pm

H. Grouse says:
The differences between Venus and Mercury are very similar to the differences between the Earth and the Moon.
No, they’re not. I’ll let you figure out why [hint: the moon orbits the earth].
And:
…Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Mercury.
That’s exactly what I posted above. I hope we’re not dealing with crazy “chuck” by another name. The irrational arguments sound the same.

mellyrn
August 2, 2014 7:43 pm

milodonharlani says, So while, yes a bare majority of incoming solar radiation is IR, the IR portion of outgoing reflected energy is higher.
Ookay? But I wasn’t thinking that “how much relevant IR comes in from the Sun” and “how much relevant IR is outgoing from the Earth” made any difference, so long as any IR in the relevant wavelengths does come from the Sun.
Putting it simplistically (because I am simple, not because I think you are): imagine that 400 CO2 molecules in every million atmospheric molecules literally intercept 400 of every million IR photons (in the relevant wavelengths, but I’m going to stop adding that phrase). Half of them get “trapped” here, because the excited CO2 molecules calm back down isotropically, while the other half continue on towards space — if they came from planetside; otherwise, half get “blocked” from ever reaching the planet, for a net gain of zero.
The 400 CO2 molecules do not care if the IR photons are outbound, inbound, or going sideways (off a wall, or a neighboring molecule?) “Isotropic” means that half — actually slightly less, since the CO2 is ABOVE the surface, so a reradiated photon could head slightly “downward” but still miss the Earth — head for the planet, and slightly more than half head for space. The higher the CO2 molecule is, the more likely its reradiated photon is to reach space, rather than Earth.
If there were no IR of the relevant wavelength coming in from the Sun, then there would be none to “reflect” away — it would then be just slightly-less-than-half of the outbound IR being trapped here, and then you just might have a warming.
The only way I can see CO2 contributing at all to warming is at night, for this reason: there is no incoming IR on the night side for CO2 to “block” from getting planetside, but there is outgoing IR for it to “trap”.
And yet, Venus. Venus clearly begs to differ.

August 2, 2014 8:01 pm

Re: Bill Illis says:August 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm
“If Earth had a retro-grade spin rate like Venus, the atmosphere would accumulate something like 92 extra bar ..”
Opening myself to the risk of sounding like a fanboy, Bill, this was a fantastic comment. Very clear. Very teacher-like. I’ve read through this thread and followed its three primary debates, learning as I read. Most of the comments are great, but yours resonated and capped the Mercury-Venus-moon-Earth debate well.

TNA
August 2, 2014 9:00 pm

Damn.
I was hoping that we’d be at 18 years of no warming at the end of August so that we could throw a “Denier Bier” party in Sydney to celebrate the coming of age…..
If we’ve had to drop the first month of the series, I’ve booked the party too early.
Oh well, we’ll find another reason to drink anyway. Details here, if you happen to be in Sydney at the time.
http://thenewaustralian.org/?cat=44

Darren Potter
August 2, 2014 9:13 pm

John Finn – “The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade.”
Let me guess…
Joules rate was derived from Proxy data based on coral ring data from a few dozen Staghorn corals, while tossing out hundreds of samples from neighboring Elkhorn corals, with calibration done by a few years of on-shore solar cell output.
/sarc

Darren Potter
August 2, 2014 9:38 pm

John Finn: ‘However, I also know that the precision and accuracy of late 17th century/early 18th century readings was not too great (temperatures were recorded to the nearest 0.5 degree).”
Surprise! It ain’t got no better…
70.6% of surveyed USHCN stations (1007 surveyed out of 1221) had an estimated error greater than 2 deg C based on NOAA’s guidelines.
http://www.surfacestations.org

Patrick
August 2, 2014 11:33 pm

H Grouse seems very confused about the temperature of Venus and what causes it and why it is hotter than Mercury. We’ve known the gas laws for a couple of hudred years. We also have known why Venus is so hot since the late 1960’s/1970’s and was actually measured by the Russian landers/probes and an American orbiter.

jones
August 2, 2014 11:55 pm

Off topic I guess but through the eye of faith is the slope of the arctic beginning to flatten out already?
Must be cold weather up there right now.
.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

climatereason
Editor
August 3, 2014 12:07 am

Phil
you say;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1700221
I met up with David Parker at the Met office at the end of last year.
His work was concerned with creating a daily temperature which only becomes possible to reconstruct from that later date.
Whereas Manleys work was in ascertaining a monthly one from 1659.
As It brings in all sorts of records from instruments to observations to scientific studies it is actually seen as a pretty good and accurate analysis of what went on during the period.
As with ALL historic reconstructions we should take the accuracy to tenths of a degree with a pinch of salt .
As you know Phil Jones looked at the period ending 1740 and concluded that the 1730’s were the warmest decade in the record until the 1990’s. The temperatures in the following decade have since fallen back again . I have previously cited this paper to you and also commented that it caused Phil Jones to believe that natural variations were greater than he had previously thought.
tonyb

August 3, 2014 12:08 am

Jeff Alberts says:

Whether or not it’s cherry picking seems irrelevant, since there is no global temperature. It’s essentially an “angels on the head of a pin” argument.

Before multicellular life, there were times when the ocean temperature reached 40C. I think you might reconsider your “angels…” argument if that happened today, regardless of whether there is a single, unique measure of the planetary temperature.

August 3, 2014 12:14 am

Patrick,
Right you are. I don’t know why H Grouse can’t understand the basics. It seems everyone else can.
============================
TNA,
Thank you for that link. It’s nice to see WUWT getting some international recognition.

August 3, 2014 12:34 am

H. Grouse, you are asking a question that shows you are about three levels of physics knowledge below the point at which even a clear explanation would make any sense. When I get some time I want to write at length about this matter, but for here and now, a few basic facts.
The relevant temperature of a radiating object is the temperature at the radiating surface, not at “the surface” (meaning the solid surface). At different frequencies, this radiating surface will be at different altitudes. On Earth, the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, so for visible light, the real surface is the radiating surface. In the CO2 absorption band, it is almost to the top of atmosphere, because that band is saturated. Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.) Then, as others point out, rotation, water, clouds, etc., all have further influences. In short, your attempts to extract an “explanation” for the differences you see between airless and atmospheric bodies is based on an extremely muddled lack of understanding of the physics involved. You need to ask your question in a forum pitched at a much more basic level. In this thread, at least, the cruel truth is that you are just cluttering the discussion.

Stacey
August 3, 2014 12:54 am

Thank you Christopher for this post.
Please could you or any other poster demonstrate the actual climate sensitivity in respect of the last 30 years due the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
My guess is that it’s Zero 🙂

August 3, 2014 12:59 am

Reblogged this on The Real World and commented:
Now 17 years and 10 months with zero warming globally….

Patrick
August 3, 2014 1:10 am

“dbstealey says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:14 am”
It’s rather incredible really isn’t it? I’ve known these facts since I was 8. In fact when I was in primary school in the UK, we used to have afternoon story time. During one reading by the teacher I was “doodling”. Teacher was annoyed and called me up to the front of the class to explain to him (Mr. Harris) and the class what I was doing. I was doodling a CME/solar flare. After explaining what it was, I was allowed to go back to my seat.

Editor
August 3, 2014 1:13 am

Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) says: “Given in my view the importance of what I have found and the implication of this finding, both in forecasting ENSO and for its importance in the AGW debate, I would like to make my findings public in such a way as to make as much damage to the CAGW theory and subsequent policy as possible.”
The first problem you’ll encounter is that warmists view ENSO as noise, not as a contributor to global warming, so you will be ignored even if you’re correct.
Second problem, I read the post at your blog as far as your statement, “The only mechanism by which ENSO can be driven by changes in Earth’s rotation is by variations in the tidal force.”
That of course is incorrect. The coupled ocean-atmosphere mechanisms that drive ENSO are well understood and they do not need to be “driven by changes in Earth’s rotation…by variations in the tidal force”.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 3, 2014 12:20 pm

1: “That of course is incorrect. The coupled ocean-atmosphere mechanisms that drive ENSO are well understood”
No, the main drivers that drive ENSO are not well understood. In fact they are ignored. With the main drivers I mean tidal effects and electromagnetic changes in solar activity. One may call them the steering forces of ENSO that are working in the background. The notion the ENSO forcing best can be described as Gaussian Noise or with some form of Chaos Theory as suggested by the IPCC is phony.
Of course the dynamic and its forcing as described with ENSO models with effects such as Kelvin wave, Walker circulations or Bjerknes feedbacks are still valid.
With the ANN I built, I’ve followed the data rather than preconceived notions.
Because today’s ENSO forecasters don’t include the main ENSO drivers in their ENSO models they are unable to make reliable ENSO forecasts with a time span longer than 2 to 3 months in advance, even with ever more powerful computers.
I’m able to make reliable ENSO forecast years in advance with my ANN projection although I have to admit that the results don’t include high frequency variations, only low frequency result. Nevertheless, the next large El Niño event is going to occur during the year 2018. I think it is going to be similar to the El Niño of 2010.
I now have daily data for solar electromagnetic changes although with some data with some gaps and I have daily data over the positions and distance of the Moon and the Sun which lets me calculate the tidal force with high precision. Hopefully with that I could be able to get results with high frequency variations, right.
2: I now that I’m going to by the most part being ignored by the climate scientist crowd.
The only ways to stop them and their green policies are if the none warming continues, we enter a cooling period or if we continue to pond them with evidence science, backedup with empirical data and reproducible data and software code.

Tim
August 3, 2014 1:46 am

Perhaps there should be some moderation of the ‘Off Topic’ people.
Not that I’m saying that they’re here simply to distract from the topic. mind you.

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 2:16 am

John Finn:
You begin your post at August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm saying

Before responding to any more posts

Well, perhaps you could take time to answer my post at August 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm.
It replied to assertions you made to me by saying and asking

No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.
I would be grateful for any reference you can give me to your having disputed the definition of global warming prior to the cessation of global warming. I would especially appreciate this reference because this is the second WUWT thread where during this week you have adopted a definition that is not accepted as a method to pretend that global warming has not stopped.

As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.
Richard

Eliza
August 3, 2014 2:21 am

Maybe this posting should be evaluated in the light of this bombshell:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/#comments

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 2:23 am

H Grouse:
At August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm you say

Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth.

Yes, and many have noticed that.
Your purpose seems to be to troll this thread from its subject and onto anything else that you can.
Richard

John Finn
August 3, 2014 2:37 am

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm
John Finn,
The Little Ice Age [LIA] was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene. That fact is reflected in ice cores and in contemporary accounts. Pretending the LIA didn’t happen is crazy.

1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.
2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless. The flooding throughout the past winter has convinced many in the UK that we are undergoing significant climate change.
3., The ice core data is from a single location. It does not represent the global picture.
4. The Non tree ring reconstruction only extends up to 1900. The link also fails to report the source of the reconstruction. I suspect it’s BS.
5. But, possibly the worse problem with your evidence is that it is contradictory. The Greenland ice core data shows a Roman Warm Period. The Non T-R reconstruction shows the Roman period to be cold which again leads me to conclude that the reconstruction is BS.
I am sceptical about both the LIA and MWP as truly global events. There are many studies from around the world but the timing of the cooling/warming events do not match up.

PLS
August 3, 2014 2:53 am

>rogerknights says:
>August 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm
>[If a writer is submitting from Facebook or similar limited screens and platforms, a “carriage
>return” (paragraph) is a “submit & send right now” signal.
On most browsers where a carriage return is “submit & send”, shift-CR will produce a CR in the text. Two shift-CR’s will produce a blank line.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 3:19 am

richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am
As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.

What do you mean by “people like me”? What reference am I supposed to provide? If you think I have reviled you for some reason on a web blog provide me with a link or a quote, at least, and I’ll try to respond to it.
The only point I recall making about the surface temperature trend is that (a) there is No significant cooling trend and (b) the error bars include the previous pre-2000 trend and I know how you like to see error bars, Richard. In fact, I’m a bit surprised you haven’t challenged Christopher Monckton on this issue.
If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.

Patrick
August 3, 2014 3:41 am

“John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am
If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.”
Exactly. its not happening!

MikeB
August 3, 2014 4:22 am

mellyrn says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm
Mellyrn, some basics. When you say that “400 CO2 molecules in every million atmospheric molecules literally intercept 400 of every million IR photons” this would be true if the atmosphere was only one molecule thick. But, as you know, the atmosphere is many kilometres deep and that contains a lot of layers one molecule thick. Consequently, all IR (at 15 microns) is absorbed by CO2 in a very short distance (95% within one metre).
As for incoming solar radiation, at 15 microns it is negligible whereas this wavelength is close to the peak of the outgoing Earth radiation [ Incoming radiation at 15 microns is less than one millionth the intensity of the outgoing radiation]. The CO2 blanket thus acts as a filter, letting solar radiation in but stopping the Earth’s radiation getting back out. The warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which act in this way is quite considerable, making the surface of the Earth about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be.
It is sad that so many people commenting here are still unaware of the basic facts. Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that the greenhouse effect is not real.. The trouble with continually repeating this sort of nonsense is that other people form the conclusion that all sceptics are ill-informed or stupid.

August 3, 2014 4:33 am

Ron House says, August 3, 2014 at 12:34 am:
“At different frequencies, this radiating surface will be at different altitudes.”
Meaning, for Earth there is no radiating surface. There is a continuum of radiating layers all the way from the surface up to the ToA. The average final, total flux from the Earth system to space is about 239 W/m^2. This is accumulated from all of these layers. They all contribute some tiny amount. Yes, mathematically you can calculate a mean temperature from the evened-out total flux, get 255K and pretend that this correlate to one real ‘radiating surface’ at this particular temperature, and then from there draw the temperature profile down to the real surface at 288K and pretend that the difference makes up the rGHE (288-255=) 33K. In the real world, such a radiating surface at 255K doesn’t exist.
Some incremental layers contribute more than others to that final, accumulated flux (simply balancing the average incoming from the Sun), some considerably more. One such layer is the solid/liquid surface itself. A second region lies high in the troposphere. Here H2O is the radiator. In fact, throughout the tropospheric column, H2O is the prime, almost exclusive radiator to space.
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/upwelling_brightness1.jpg
It is quite evident here how the Sun first heats the surface, then convective/evaporative processes responding brings the energy up into the troposphere, distributing it along the lapse rate, all the way to the tropopause (convection top), for it to be radiated back to space from these different layers.
“Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”
Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.
This is how we observe the real world works (as opposed to the purely theoretical bubble world of climate ‘science’).

Editor
August 3, 2014 5:14 am

MikeB says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:22 am
mellyrn says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm

As for incoming solar radiation, at 15 microns it is negligible whereas this wavelength is close to the peak of the outgoing Earth radiation [ Incoming radiation at 15 microns is less than one millionth the intensity of the outgoing radiation]. The CO2 blanket thus acts as a filter, letting solar radiation in but stopping the Earth’s radiation getting back out. The warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which act in this way is quite considerable, making the surface of the Earth about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be.

Right, except ISTR the warming estimate is 18 C°. However, don’t get so excited about a single wavelength as there’s a lot more IR being radiated at other wavelengths. Also, some of that 18 C° means Earth isn’t a snowball, and water vapor is a stronger GHG. If you look at that Ceres image I posted, you may note that:
1) Radiation from cloud tops is low.
This means that the areas where radiation is reaching space (call it effective radiation) is mainly from lower levels.
2) Most of the ground features are obscured.
This may mean that a lot of effective radiation is coming from the lower atmosphere, or it may mean that the emissivity of much of the planet is equal and it’s glowing with equal brightness. Or both – low level clouds radiate well.
3) Hot dry ground features (hot deserts) do stand out.
CO2 is pretty well dispersed, water vapor is not. This helps show both that while the atmosphere is saturated at some wavelengths, it most definitely is not at others, especially when water vapor isn’t obscuring things.

It is sad that so many people commenting here are still unaware of the basic facts. Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that the greenhouse effect is not real.. The trouble with continually repeating this sort of nonsense is that other people form the conclusion that all sceptics are ill-informed or stupid.

Well, I’ll agree with some of that. One pet peeve I have is that people get distracted by the long wave spectrum that is absorbed by CO2 and lose sight of those parts absorbed by water vapor and worse, forget about the portions of the spectrum that are wide open. Every morning I go outside after a clear windless night, I’m reminded how much energy the Earth’s surface radiates into space. It is sad that so many people don’t seem to incorporate that basic fact into their understanding of of Earth’s radiation budget.

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 6:34 am

John Finn:
Thankyou for your reply to me at August 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm.
OK. So you did not dispute the definition of global warming until global warming stopped. But you now say

The warming may not be as great as predicted (or projected) but it is still happening. To keep arguing that it isn’t is inviting trouble further down the line. Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer but it shouldn’t be extreme or catastrophic and may even be beneficial.

NO! Failing to adhere to the truth is “inviting trouble further down the line”.
Global warming has stopped.
Nobody knows if the plateau of global temperature will end with warming or cooling.
Your warmunist faith that “Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer” is misplaced when “increasing CO2” has not made the world warmer this century.
Richard

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 7:01 am

John Finn:
First,please allow me to apologise for failing to see your post at August 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm. Having now seen it I have replied to it with my post at August 3, 2014 at 6:34 am.
However, my missing your post resulted in my writing my post at August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am so you have provided your reply at August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am.
Your reply concludes saying

If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.

I am not “arguing” anything. I am stating facts.
As I said in my post at August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am

Please consider {your} daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.
Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase energy.
Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.
All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.

If you want to redefine global warming to include “heat accumulation in the ocean” then you need to get NASA, CRU , IPCC and many others to agree with John Finn that now global warming has stopped they have been assessing the wrong thing. Good luck with that.
Richard

PMHinSC
August 3, 2014 7:15 am

milodonharlani says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:23 pm
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Earth 0.367 geometric
0.306 Bond
Thanks. How is albedo determined; is it calculated or measured? Do we know how much albedo has changed, if at all, over the past 35 years?

mellyrn
August 3, 2014 7:19 am

MikeB, is all the CO2 in a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere, then?
Sure, 15 microns is a tiny portion of incoming IR, but it remains that if there is ANY coming in, then there is some that can be blocked from getting here (and, however tiny, with the Sun being so much bigger than the Earth, “a tiny fraction” is still going to be a goodly amount). That one-molecule-thick layer of CO2 at the top of the atmosphere will effectively “shade” the planetside from that solar contribution, just as the CO2 at the bottom “blankets” the surface. And if any incoming 15u photons get past the upper CO2, they could still be “turned around” by the lower ones, and if any outbound 15u photons get past the lower CO2, they could still be “turned around” by the upper ones.
For CO2 to cause warming, it has to act like a check valve, allowing the relevant photons to pass in one direction (downward, planetside) but not the other. Show me how CO2 can possibly have a preference for “down” over “up”.

August 3, 2014 7:34 am

Kristian says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:33 am
Some incremental layers contribute more than others to that final, accumulated flux (simply balancing the average incoming from the Sun), some considerably more. One such layer is the solid/liquid surface itself. A second region lies high in the troposphere. Here H2O is the radiator. In fact, throughout the tropospheric column, H2O is the prime, almost exclusive radiator to space.
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg

It’s bad practice to link to a graph without its legend since you can be misled as to what is being plotted.
It is quite evident here how the Sun first heats the surface, then convective/evaporative processes responding brings the energy up into the troposphere, distributing it along the lapse rate, all the way to the tropopause (convection top), for it to be radiated back to space from these different layers.
“Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”
Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.

Here’s how Clough and Iacono describe it in the paper from which that figure was taken:
“The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

August 3, 2014 7:42 am

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am
richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am
“As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.”
What do you mean by “people like me”? What reference am I supposed to provide? If you think I have reviled you for some reason on a web blog provide me with a link or a quote, at least, and I’ll try to respond to it.

I wouldn’t bother John, courtney exhibits narcisstic behavior, any criticism of his posts constitutes ‘stalking’ or ‘reviling’ him. You’ll just get into what Anthony described as a ‘food fight’ , it’s not worth the trouble.

MikeB
August 3, 2014 7:55 am

Ric, ISTR is what?
If you mean that the Earth is only 18 degree warmer because of greenhouse gases then you probably got confused with minus 18 (being the temperature of the surface without a greenhouse effect). CO2 of course affects a much wider band than just 15 microns itself. The fact that some radiation escapes through the atmospheric window does not change the fact that some is ‘blocked’.
Some people (not me) do argue that without CO2 the temperature would be lower (true) and so water vapour concentration would be lower and so the world would cool and water vapour would be even lower and so on. They argue that CO2 is the control knob that ultimately controls temperature and that water vapour is just a ‘feedback’. They may be right? But that was not the point I was addressing.
mellyrn says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:19 am

MikeB, is all the CO2 in a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere, then?

No, Mellyrn. No, CO2 is an evenly mixed gas in the atmosphere. The fact that the Earth is bigger than the Sun has also been taken into account when I said that its input at 15 microns is only one millionth of the outgoing radiation at that wavelength. Just assume that ALL the Sun’s radiation at 15 micron is prevented from reaching the surface. It makes no difference because bulk of the solar radiation is at shorter wavelength and passes through the atmosphere unhindered.
Since it appears you managed to learn to read how about trying to understand what is written.

Editor
August 3, 2014 8:10 am

MikeB says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:55 am

Ric, ISTR is what?

Sorry, should have spelled it out. – I Seem To Recall.

If you mean that the Earth is only 18 degree warmer because of greenhouse gases then you probably got confused with minus 18 (being the temperature of the surface without a greenhouse effect).

That could well be what I was thinking of, I don’t have time today to check – it’s the sort of question that would take me off on too many tangents….

PMHinSC
August 3, 2014 8:28 am

MikeB says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:55 am
Ric, ISTR is what?
Bookmark this
http://www.acronymfinder.com
and
http://www.urbandictionary.com
I narrows the choices down.

Jeff Alberts
August 3, 2014 8:29 am

Ron House says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:08 am
Before multicellular life, there were times when the ocean temperature reached 40C. I think you might reconsider your “angels…” argument if that happened today, regardless of whether there is a single, unique measure of the planetary temperature.

Why would I reconsider? Like the atmosphere, there is no single ocean temperature. Or are you saying that the oceans were a uniform 40C the world over? If so, any evidence of that?

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 8:34 am

Troll who posts as Phil.:
I see you continue your stalking of me with your post in this thread at August 3, 2014 at 7:42 am.
As I said to you in the other thread earlier today, your stalking and trolling is disruptive. Please return to your playpen.
Richard

Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2014 8:44 am

Seems the El nono hasn’t panned out the way warmunists had hoped, so they have to resort to the absurd notion that the “heat is hiding” in the oceans, or some such nonsense.
Yeah, good luck with that.

William Astley
August 3, 2014 8:45 am

Jim Clarke says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
“R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
Near 100%! Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, all else being equal, should produce some warming, just nowhere near what the IPCC says it should. Nonetheless, if the CO2 content increases and there is no warming, something must be offsetting that warming.
William: In response to Clarke and Shearer.
The assertion that unexplained natural processes suddenly offset the AGW warming (Why is there suddenly the start of cooling 17 years 10 months ago? What changed 17 years 10 months ago to physically cause the cooling to start to offset the CO2 warming?) and that the fact that the weird mysterious cooling mechanism must exactly cancel out the CO2 forcing (the CO2 forcing if it were responsible for the majority of the warming in the last 50 years, would require a massive natural cooling process(es) to exactly cancel out the CO2 forcing which requires the chaotic mystery natural cooling mechanism to have increased in magnitude with time to cancel out the CO2 forcing, as the CO2 forcing if the warmist theory were correct is increasing with time ) is absurd. (i.e. There is no physical explanation/change to start the cooling 17 years 10 months ago and no physical change/mechanism to cause the cooling to increase with time over the 17 year 10 month period to exactly cancel out the CO2 forcing.)
There are multiple observations (paleo record, periods of time when there is no correlation of planetary temperature with atmospheric CO2 level for thousands and millions of years, latitudinal warming paradox(the warming in the last 50 years is at high latitudes with almost no warming in the tropics which does not match the pattern of warming if AGW was the cause – if AGW was the cause the majority of the warming should have occur in tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space before the increase in atmospheric CO2 and where is ample water to provide amplification), the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot at 8km above the earth’s surface which is a fundamental prediction of the CO2 theory and which is required to cause the CO2 warming, and so on) that indicate there is a major fundamental error (missing variable that is not modeled that explains what is observed, that causes greenhouse gas warming to saturate at higher concentrations of gas, the explanation is not simply low sensitivity forcing changes) in the basic AGW theory/modeling of the atmosphere. The observations in the last 50 years and the last 100 million years supports the assertion that (1) the planet strongly resists forcing changes and (2) something is inhibiting AGW forcing in the higher altitudes of the atmosphere, and that there is a very powerful forcing mechanism that causes the planet to warm and cool (explanation for the glacial/interglacial cycle in the last 1.8 million years and the ice epoches).
A period of 17 years, 10 months when there is no warming supports the assertion that (3) the majority of the warming (roughly 90%) in the last 150 years and 50 years was due to some other mechanism than the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
If assertion 3 is correct, the 17 years, 10 month period when there is no warming is explained by the mechanism that caused the warming in the last 150 years saturating.
Comment:
The warmists appeal to the fact that there are other periods when there is a plateau with no warming or no additional cooling as if the fact that there were other periods when what we are observing currently has happened before somehow explains away the observations that cannot be explained by their theory. The explanation for the past plateaus and the current plateau is the same.
The majority of the warming in the last 50 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover which explains why the warming was primarily at high latitudes. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The same high latitude warming has occurred before. In every case the periods of high latitude warming that correlate with periods of high solar magnetic cycle activity were followed by cooling when the sun entered a Maunder like minimum.
The sun is in the process of entering a very, very, deep solar magnetic cycle minimum. The plateau of no warming is almost over. The planet is now starting to cool (record sea ice in the Antarctic, the start of increase in sea ice in the Arctic, and the start of inhibiting of El Nino events.) The observed sudden changes in climate require something to change to physically cause what is observed. The change in the sun is the explanation for the sudden changes in climate.

August 3, 2014 8:59 am

Christopher Monckton,
Your regular monthly updates on the temperature dataset trends are getting better in communicating the key issues. Thank you. I, for one, appreciate the more even toned and measured delivery of this most recent post of yours compared to the previous ones.
As I step back and digest the state of disarray of the IPCC’s theory of CAGW, I am considering what kind of justifications the IPCC Bureau will be forced to use to justify creating an AR6.
If I was an intellectual leader within the IPCC right now, I would consider the idea that it might be best to have AR5 be the last full report because an AR6 is likely to be a climb down from alarmism of AR6. Such a likely climb down from the level of alarmism in AR5 does not serve the ideology of the IPCC Bureau, so why do an AR6 at all? Perhaps we will see a shift in IPCC Bureau strategy to do topical short reports at need to target key alarming promotion on no fixed schedule instead of a full blown AR on the normal time cycle of past ARs.
John

August 3, 2014 9:12 am

Phil. says, August 3, 2014 at 7:34 am:
“Here’s how Clough and Iacono describe it in the paper from which that figure was taken:
“The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

I don’t care about what the authors claim, Phil. They have no observational backing whatsoever for their claim. It’s just a claim, dutifully and reflexively bowing to the Great God of the CO2 scare. I care only about what their results show. Their claim simply underscores how they don’t get the dynamics of the troposphere. What actually moves the heat inside the troposphere: Convection, not radiation.
In the following, I quote from Chiefio putting the diagram in question into its proper context of what’s really going on in the atmosphere, not what you and Clough/Iacono seem to think (assume) is going on:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
“It [the Clough/Iacono paper] goes on at some great length about how Green House Gases increase the radiative cooling of the Stratosphere. They are throughly convinced that stratospheric cooling is the Evil Twin of tropospheric warming, showing that GHGs are critical to both (so by implication, cooling in the stratosphere endorses warming troposphere). Completely missing the point that the troposphere is dominated by water and convection, so more heat in just means faster transport up. Yet the graph is useful and the discussion is interesting.
The caption [of the figure in question: http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg ] reads:
3. Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, cabon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colours from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. Figure from: Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995; adapted from the SPARC Website. Please click to enlarge! (60 K)

First, look at that left hand lower edge. See that big red spot? That’s water, dumping heat like crazy at the top of the troposphere. At a height that is determined NOT by that nice flat dashed line of tropopause, but directly by the amount of heat that needs to be dumped! Once again we have a ‘static scored’ model in a dynamic real world. More heat at the surface means more and stronger convection, more and stronger evaporation, and a bigger red spot higher up that graph! Remember that tropical storm “overshoot”? Not seeing it on this graph, are we?… Surges of heat would lead to surges of water across that dotted tropopause line and into the lower stratosphere. That is what we know actually happens.
Now look over at that large orange / yellow / green “cats eye” in the stratosphere that is the CO2 signature. Look directly below it. See that basically empty band of light blue? That is a direct reading on CO2, and it shows that the CO2 is just not doing anything that matters in the troposphere.
From that point, as you move to the right below the tropopause, you find water once again radiating at height, but not as much, in an even larger wavenumber (shorter wavelength). The overall message of this graph is just that in the troposphere, water is everything and CO2 is nothing. We can also add to this graph that convection and evaporation / condensation are major processes in the troposphere and this radiative model isn’t really all that important for surface cooling at all.
In the stratosphere we see some cooling from water vapor, so, little as there is up there, it still does something. However, THE largest blobs of cooling color come from CO2 and ozone. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes more radiative heat loss from just those parts of the atmosphere that do radiative heat loss, and does nearly nothing in that part of the atmosphere dominated by convection and evaporation / precipitation. Warming of the surface of the earth increases convection, evaporation, and water transport, and deposits that water and heat higher in the sky; so will dump more heat into the stratosphere (and perhaps more water vapor too … enhancing that water radiative part).
In short, the system is dynamic and has a convection driven lower layer, with a radiative driven upper layer. More CO2 means more radiative heat loss, not less.”

Beta Blocker
August 3, 2014 9:23 am

John Whitman, my thoughts on the combined topics of the IPCC’s AR5 model envelope and the Central England Temperature (CET) record are contained in a post I made on Lucia’s Blackboard in October, 2013. These thoughts are reproduced below:
==================================
Beta Blocker (Comment #120204 – Lucia’s Blackboard)
October 15th, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Coming from the “one picture is worth a million words” department, I thought it might be a useful exercise in the visual interpretation of graphical information to combine IPCC/AR5 Figure 1.4 with the Hadley Center’s graph of Central England Temperature (CET), 1772-2013, placing both graphics onto one common page.
This exercise is yet another phase in my ongoing efforts to expand my “CET is Anything and Everything” climate science paradigm into uncharted visual communication territory.
A major characteristic of the CET-is-Anything-and-Everything paradigm is the assumption that pre-2007 rates of temperature change in the CET historical record can be used as rough predictive indicators for post-2007 GMST rates of change — at least to the extent of stating that similar rates of change have been experienced within the past 240 years which cover similar (or longer) timeframes as does the AR5 2013-2035 predictive timeframe of twenty-five to thirty years.
Here it is: AR5 Figure 1.4 and CET 1772-2013
The illustration has two major graphical elements:
-> The first major graphical element, located in the upper-left quarter section of the illustration, displays an adaptation of IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4 which highlights the boundaries of the “AR5 Expanded Modeling Envelope”; i.e. that section of the original Figure 1.4 which illustrates the observation validation zone between the year 2001 and the year 2035 of past IPCC model runs. Overlain on the Figure 1.4 adaptation is a series of seven temperature rate-of-change trend lines spaced in 0.1 degree increments, each of which begins in the year 2007, and each of which also has a historical precedent in the Central England Temperature record.
-> The second major graphical element, which is shaded in light gray and which covers approximately three-quarters of the illustration, documents the method which was used to visually fit the approximate slopes of the seven CET temperature trends occurring between 1772 and 1975 which are being used as the historical CET precedents. A third graphic illustrating Global Mean Temperature between 1850 and 2008 is also included for visual reference and comparison. The original source graphics for CET and for GMT are from the Hadley Center.
Let’s remark here that the Central England Temperature record is the only instrumental record we have that goes back as far as it does; and that its recent temperature trends are approximately reflective of recent global temperature trends.
Concerning the derivation of my own graphical adaptions of the IPCC and Hadley Center source graphics, the process by which the slopes of historical CET trend lines were determined is readily evident from direct examination of the illustration, without any further explanation other than to clarify that all fitting of trend slopes was done by visually placing each linearized trend line onto the HadCET plot wherever it was appropriate in the CET record for the particular decadal rate of change being fitted: -0.1, -0.03, +.03, +0.1, +0.2, +0.3, or +0.4
Several points become immediately evident from a casual look at this one-page graphical illustration:
(1) GMST could fall at a rate of -0.03 C per decade between 2007 and 2021 and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.
(2) GMST could stay flat between 2007 and 2028 — i.e., have a trend of 0 C per decade for a period of 21 years — and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.
(3) A small upward trend of +0.03 C per decade is the approximate rate of change in CET for the period of 1772 through 2007, a period of 235 years. GMST could rise with that same small upward trend of +0.03 C per decade for another 28 years beyond 2007 and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.
(4) For the timeframe covering the period between 2007 and 2035, GMST could experience a rising temperature trend of anywhere from +0.03 per decade on up to +0.4 C per decade, while still remaining within the scope of past historical precedents documented in the Central England Temperature record for similar periods of time.
(5) Rates of CET temperature change which covered time periods of at least twenty-five years, and which ranged from a low of -0.1 C per decade on up to a high of +0.4 C per decade, occurred at pre-industrial levels of CO2.
What does it all mean?
It means we have seen it all before, and we will probably see it all again; i.e., there is nothing new under the sun.
(End of October 2013 Comment)
==================================
Let’s go beyond this commentary from October, 2013 and work with an assumption that CET’s historical trends, up or down, are 2 times whatever GMT historical trends were for the approximate time periods covered.
This kind assumption would be justified by the many claims now being made that such-and-such location on earth is warming at twice the rate of the world average.
If we assume for purposes of argument that this is true of Central England Temperature, let’s simply cut all CET trends to half of what is indicated by the Hadley Center plots.
If the assumption that CET ~= 2 x GMT for all historical periods is now operative, does that additional assumption in any way invalidate my basic assertion that “We have seen it all before, and we will probably see it all again; i.e., there is nothing new under the sun.”
Why or why not?

mellyrn
August 3, 2014 9:49 am

Since it appears you managed to learn to read how about trying to understand what is written
MikeB, I am sorry to be so stupid. Please help me understand what you have written. I forgive you for saying that the Earth is bigger than the Sun:
The fact that the Earth is bigger than the Sun has also been….
I assume that was a typo. However, I am not sure I understand,
its input at 15 microns is only one millionth of the outgoing radiation at that wavelength.
As written, “its” appears to refer to the Earth, but if I autocorrect your typo, “its” refers to the Sun; so you’re claiming that incoming (to Earth) 15u IR is one-millionth of the 15u headed back out from Earth? Do I have that right?
If yes, citation, please?
If yes, I can see how this would have a “check valve” effect. I can also see (as I said earlier) how CO2 could cause warming at night, because there is no incoming solar at all — let alone one-millionth part — to the night side of the planet.
It remains, though, that 460 million years ago, CO2 stood at 4400 ppm, eleven times higher than today’s, and Earth did not develop a “runaway greenhouse effect” and burn up. In fact, 460 mya, we were not only not burning up, we were in a deep ice age. Despite all that CO2.
It remains that for 80% of Earth’s existence, the planet has been too warm for permanent, year-round ice even at the poles, so even if we warm back up to completely melt the polar ice caps, this will not be a “disaster” but simply Earth returning. to. normal..
It remains that we are currently in an ice age, and if all humanity and all its emissions vanished off the planet today, Earth would still, sooner or later (my money is on AT LEAST 30 million years later), return to NORMAL — i.e., warm back up.
It remains that you can’t know what effect CO2 is having on Venus (if any) until you take the pressure/temperature gradient into account. To pretend pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere doesn’t matter to temperature is to tell aeronautics engineers and pilots and others who need to understand what they’re flying through that they are ignorant of atmospheres. (That was H Grouse who didn’t/couldn’t get that; I do not know what you think on this score.)
In short, whatever theoretical basis there is for CO2-driven warming, the real world (current plateau; the Andean-Saharan Ice Age in 4400ppm CO2; Venus at 49km altitude) doesn’t back it up.
My search for a “check valve” effect (or the lack of one) was an attempt to reconcile CO2’s clear and obvious IR-absorption properties with the observed zero correlation with real-world warming.
When observation conflicts with theory, it ain’t theory we keep. I do understand that.

August 3, 2014 9:52 am

John Finn (August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am) “If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.”
It would be a mistake to attribute the long term heating of the oceans to CO2 warming. CO2 warming has been slight and mainly over land and high latitudes Heat accumulation in the ocean is primarily a natural cyclical phenomenon modulated by clouds and solar variability. We have had a long stretch of historically high solar activity followed by less cloud cover during La Nina. Cloud cover decreased in a long term trend since the 80’s: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg and has stayed low. So it’s no surprise that the oceans are heating in the long term.
Once the secular trends end and the oceans start to cool again the chicken littles will undoubtedly point to some new indicator of warming even if they have to completely fabricate the data. Their choice will probably be sea level since current sea level rise exceeds the estimate from expansion due to warming. They will simply claim that earth’s warming should only be measured by ocean expansion and they will suitably bump up estimate for post-glacial rebound and tell us to pay no attention to the actual rise in sea levels but will you look at that extreme adjusted rise! Unprecedented.

Richard M
August 3, 2014 9:54 am

To try and get this discussion a little more on topic, I’ve always felt requiring a negative trend to delimit “the pause” was questionable. In fact, a bit too conservative. When are alarmists ever conservative? A slightly better method would be to use the 95% falsification criteria normally used in science. Since the warming is supposed to be around .2C/decade then anything less than a.01C/decade trend matches the 95% criteria.
The trend at 18 years is .003/C decade or less than the 95% criteria.
The trend at 18 years and 1 month is .006/C decade. still less than the 95% criteria
The trend at 18 years and 2 months is .009/C decade. still less than the 95% criteria
The trend at 18 years and 3 month is .013/C decade. which is now over the 95% criteria.
Hence, I would think claiming “the pause” is at 18 years and 2 months is the most scientifically accurate description.

August 3, 2014 10:04 am

Jimbo says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:12 pm
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 about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The new divergence problem. If it cools then it is all over. Or they will claim global cooling is caused by global warming.
=====================================================================
They already are. All climatic events are now the result of global warming. Oh, and by the way, war is peace. Heads they win, tails we lose. The world turned upside down.

August 3, 2014 10:15 am

A number of diversionary points have been attempted by certain commenters. The main point should not get lost. The models were wrong. Not one of the models predicted, as its central estimate, that there would be no global warming for close to 18 years. It becomes clearer by the month that catastrophic global warming is unlikely. And it is self-evident, after so long a period without any warming, that there is no hurry to act. Best to wait and see.
Those who deny the scientific evidence that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. There is a danger that they persist in trying to pollute these threads for the sake of discrediting skeptics as a whole. I hope the moderators will intervene to follow site policy in keeping them out, so that a rational discussion can be maintained.

Arno Arrak
August 3, 2014 10:22 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:August 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm says: “…Mr Arrak is incorrect to state that there was no 0.1 C warming from 1979-1996 in the satellite record. Taking the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, it is indeed present….”
With all due respect to you and your valuable work, Moncton of Brenchley, you are wrong and don’t know how to measure the true slope of global temperature in the presence of ENSO. What you need to do to get up to speed on this is to read pages 9 to 15 in my book and study Figure 15 and its caption on page 32. I would have enclosed a properly marked out temperature graph with this but I have no idea where to send it. If you will be kind enough and designate an address I shall be more than happy to illuminate you. Seeing is believing as they say. Perhaps it will make you realize that shooting off your mouth without having done your homework is not too smart when dealing with science.

Matthew R Marler
August 3, 2014 10:25 am

Beta Blocker: John Whitman, my thoughts on the combined topics of the IPCC’s AR5 model envelope and the Central England Temperature (CET) record are contained in a post I made on Lucia’s Blackboard in October, 2013. These thoughts are reproduced below:
That is a good post. Thank you.

Matthew R Marler
August 3, 2014 10:27 am

Arno Arrak: What you need to do to get up to speed on this is to read pages 9 to 15 in my book and study Figure 15 and its caption on page 32.
What is your book. I searched at Amazon.com and did not find one that seemed relevant.

August 3, 2014 10:39 am

John Finn says:
1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.
That conclusion results from an assumption based on one data point. The CET is the only record we have, so it is used widely. But it is very regional. You cannot point to the CET and say that represents the planet. There is a mountain of evidence showing that the LIA was global.
2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless.
Wrong. Accounts of ice faires on the Thames, and contemporary paintings of Washington crossing a Delaware river that was congested with ice floes are not “meaningless”. They show a much colder climate than today’s.
3. The ice core data is from a single location. It does not represent the global picture.
Wrong again. The ice core evidence comes from various locations in both hemisphheres, including Greenland, the Antarctic, and the Arctic. They all show warming and cooling in lockstep, therefore, they are an excellent proxy for global temperature change. They also all show the LIA, and the MWP.
4. The Non tree ring reconstruction only extends up to 1900.
So what? That does not negate the LIA, which occurred well before that.
5. But, possibly the worse problem with your evidence is that it is contradictory. The Greenland ice core data shows a Roman Warm Period.
Again, let me remind you that the ice core data shows concurrent warming and cooling in all the boreholes. That validates the global temperature changes shown, and those changes clearly show a LIA and a MWP.
I am sceptical about both the LIA and MWP as truly global events.
Your mind is closed, John, that’s all. Confirmation bias rules your thinking. You reject all evidence that contradicts your belief, while cherry-picking the rest. That’s not science; that is religion.

Matthew R Marler
August 3, 2014 10:40 am

Phil: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract
Thanks for the link. The paper is behind a paywall. Is there a free copy available somewhere?

Richard M
August 3, 2014 10:42 am

Whenever hear folks claiming that the heat from AGW is hiding in the oceans I ask one simple question. Show me one model that shows ocean warming while both the ocean surface and atmosphere are not warming. So far, no responses.
The fact is there is no mechanism associated with AGW to warm the deep oceans without first warming the higher levels. The only logical mechanism for changes in the deep oceans is mixing of the various layers. That is, changes in ocean currents. This is not adding heat, but simply moving it around.

August 3, 2014 10:46 am

Mr Arrak is incorrect. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the monthly mean global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for January 1979-December 1996 is 0.1 K (UAH); 0.1 K (RSS); and 0.1 K (mean of the two datasets). It is of course possible to tamper with the data in various ways, but taking the published data and calculating a straightforward trend is the simplest and safest course, and it shows a warming that is, however, below the 0.15 K measurement, coverage and bias uncertainty threshold. We can agree, therefore, that the warming shown on these datasets is not particularly significant. On the mean of the three terrestrial datasets, the warming over the same period is shown as 0.2 K.

Brock Way
August 3, 2014 10:49 am

Can someone tell me…at the current rate of decline, what year will it be when the IPCC prediction for the temperature change to 2100 goes negative? Will that happen in 2099 or earlier?

August 3, 2014 10:51 am

Anthony,
I have been debating a media personality for many months on the subject of CAGW and GMO. I have found one very excellent study by very qualified scientists from many prestigious Universities in multiple disciplines. It is well written and complete – my only complaint is still they are allowed to withhold data and methods?
Why are there no Climate change studies of this quality? I would like to read one?
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=R1

August 3, 2014 11:18 am

The problem with most data sets is that they not properly balanced NH/SH.
Here are the results of a properly balanced sample of weather stations:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
I have three different data sets, namely one for the speed of maxima, one for means and one for minima. All three data sets show deceleration of warming, to the point where we are now actually globally cooling [from 2000], with high correlation. The maths is as simple as what you learned in high school, when somebody throws a ball. You get a curve when you set the speed of the ball in m/s out against time. That is when you see acceleration and deceleration in the curve.
In the case of my last data set, for minimum temperatures, which is supposed to show chaos, due to alleged man made warming, I found the following final results:
over the past 40 years, from 1974 until 2014 the speed of warming was 0.004 K/annum
over the past 34 years, from 1980 until 2014 the speed of warming was 0.007 K/annum
over the past 24 years, from 1990 until 2014 the speed of warming was 0.004 K/annum
over the past 14 years, from 2000 until 2014 the speed of warming was -0.009 K/annum
Setting the speed of warming in K/annum out against time, you find the deceleration in K/annum2
Admittedly, I only have 4 points to find the deceleration. But it is enough. I always used 4 points in photometry, AAS, etc. As long as the curve/relationship is perfectly defined within the range.
See graph at the bottom of the last table
The curve I found shows Rsquared = 1. That means that the warming over time is perfectly defined by the reported quadratic function.
At any point in the past 40 years I can tell you exactly what the speed of warming was [as far as minima is concerned]
Somebody else who duplicates my results, should find the same function or something very close. Similar to throwing the dice and finding that the average of all throws is 3.5.
In my case, I just happened to find the right final number. God, or nature, if you please, has thrown us a ball. Man made warming (AGW) is, or must be, exactly 0.000K/annum. Everything is going down so naturally. There simply is no room for any AGW in the equation.
Unless somebody here has any ideas how we could put it in, so that it comes out 100% parabolic?

hepcat
August 3, 2014 11:43 am

Do you all realize the RSS relies on a climate model?
Roy Spencer (2011):
”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 they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

August 3, 2014 11:44 am

dbstealey says:
August 3, 2014 at 10:39 am
John Finn says:
2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless.
Wrong. Accounts of ice faires on the Thames, and contemporary paintings of Washington crossing a Delaware river that was congested with ice floes are not “meaningless”. They show a much colder climate than today’s.

Really, here’s a youtube video of ice floes on the Delaware for you.

A newspaper report from 1989:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19891230&id=57orAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RaMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3889,5569684
There are numerous similar events every few years.
As an illustration of the value of ‘anecdotal’ accounts, check out the following:
http://www.humanities360.com/index.php/leutzes-painting-washington-crossing-the-delaware-historical-inaccuracies-14570/
Note that it was far from contemporary.

ferd berple
August 3, 2014 11:57 am

Evidence of this can be found in the thermal expansion component of sea level rise
==========
show me a single marine chart that has a datum correction for sea level rise. they all have a datum correction for GPS/WGS84. Why if sea level rise is real, why did the marine charts not correct for this, given the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in marine commerce at stake?
most of these charts were originally surveyed well over 100 years ago, during the age of sail, so if sea level rise is occurring they would need to be corrected. but they haven’t been. why?
the reason is simple. sea level rise is a political statement. in the real world, on the scale of human lifetimes, it is too small to be noticed. it is less than the error in the measurements.

Philip Marsh
August 3, 2014 12:04 pm

The earliest month in the RSS data with a p-value over 0.1 is December, 1994, 19 years and 8 months. Using exactly 26 years, I get a p-value of 0.00000000000000022

Arno Arrak
August 3, 2014 12:14 pm

Monckton of Brenchley August 23, 2014 at 10:15 am says: “…Those who deny the scientific evidence that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. There is a danger that they persist in trying to pollute these threads for the sake of discrediting skeptics as a whole….” You seem angry. Why?
Lets work it out. I am a skeptic too and would like to stay on talking terms. First, tell me what do you consider scientific evidence? To me the fact that you can measure the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the laboratory is not proof that greenhouse warming exists. Arrhenius did this and then hypothesized that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise global temperature by four or five degrees Celsius. Present day measurements put the Arrhenius warming at about 1.1 degrees Celsius. James Hansen thought he had detected the greenhouse effect and said so to the United Statwes Senate in 1988. What was his proof? He showed that there had been a hundred year warming that culminated in the highest known recorded temperature in 1988. According to him, there was only a one percent chance that this could happen by chance. But to him, this eliminated chance and the only explanation had to be that the greenhouse effect did it. I checked his warming curve and found that it included a thirty year segment between 1910 and 1940 that definitely was not greenhouse warming. And you cannot use non-greenhouse warming to prove the existence of greenhouse warming. This may actually be moot if you consider that warming before 1950 should not be used anyway because the noise level in the older period is as