El 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.
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).
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).
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.
MikeB says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:55 am
Sorry, should have spelled it out. – I Seem To Recall.
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….
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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/