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.
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.
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.
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
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 high or higher than the signal itself. Nevertheless, IPCC which had been in the planning stages was established partly because of this bogus claim and has been pushing for the idea of anthropogenic global warming ever since. They have gotten away with this for the last 26 years because there was no way to check it. But fortunately global warming stopped. There is no warming today, and definitely no greenhouse warming that Arrhenius greenhouse theory tells us about. In fact, there has been no warming of any kind for the last 17 (or 14?) years. What is more, carbon dioxide has been on the increase all these years and this has caused no warming whatsoever. The Arrhenius greenhouse theory, on the other hand, has been predicting warming for the last 17 years and getting nothing. If your theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 17 years that theory belongs in the waste basket of history, right next to phlogiston, another failed theory of heat. There is, of course, another greenhouse theory, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT), that can explain explicitly what this warning pause entails. It has been out since 2007 but its predictions were not to the liking of the global warming cabal and they have successfully suppressed any mention of it. It turns out that the Miskolczi theory predicts exactly what we see: there is no warming now yet carbon dioxide keeps increasing. I want you to understand that it does not violate any radiation laws of physics and it does not stop the absorption of radiation by carbon dioxide. The Miskolczi theory can handle a situation where several greenhouse gases are simultaneously absorbing in the IR, something that Arrhenius cannot do. According to Miskolczi, carbon dioxide and water vapor, the two major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, establish a joint optimum absorption window in the IR which they control. The optical thickness of this joint absorption window is 1.87, calculated by Miskiolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to decrease, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but this will not create that “greenhouse warming” Arrhenius expects because the reduction of water vapor cancels out its warming capacity. This is why we have the warming pause today. It should of course be verified by another independent observation. Miskolczi did that in 2011 when he used a NOAA database of radiosonde observations to study the absorption of IR by the atmosphere over time. It turned out that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. Constant absorption means no warming and we have an exact parallel to what is happening today. As to the uniqueness or otherwise of this pause, record shows that in the eighties and nineties there was another 18 year period of no warming. We do not see that because major ground-based temperature sources have chosen to hide this by showing a 0.1 degree temperature rise where none exists according to satellite values. In view of all this, it is clear that there can be no such thing as greenhouse warming. This is not denial of absorption, it is denial that absorption can cause warming because of the effect of water vapor influence discussed. And this makes anthropogenic greenhouse warming nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, created by climate scientists anxious to prove the existence of greenhouse warming.
John Flynn says
John if the oceans are warming but the atmosphere isn’t, what is the cause?
The oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere, there is no reasonable mechanism to suggest the oceans are warming because of increase in temperature of the atmosphere. If the oceans are warming (which is very debatable) it is because of geothermal warming or because of solar [activity].
If the atmosphere is [warming] it will because the oceans warm not the other way around. If the oceans continue acidifying it will be because they are warming and this would would show up in the atmosphere as a linear increase in co2. Which we have had. It would show up in linear increase in temperatures in the atmosphere. Which we had. Both of these are an effect of the oceans warming not the other way around.
The evidence is what ever warming there was in the oceans has ceased, not increased because of supposed absorption of atmospheric heat. This why we have a pause in atmospheric warming and will have cooling moving [forward].
PMHinSC says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:15 am
Change in Earth’s albedo over the recent past is a good question for which I don’t have an answer. The two numbers I cited are from NASA’s Earth Fact Sheet, by David R. Williams, 2004.
The two methods of determining albedo are adequately described in these two well-sourced & -referenced Wiki entries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_albedo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
dbstealey says:
August 3, 2014 at 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.
——————————-
What a ludicrous claim. The LIA most certainly is evident in the CET record.
Rather than compute decadal averages, I’ll demonstrate this incontrovertible fact by listing the number of annual average temperatures in each range for representative decades:
Little Ice Age
1691-1700: five years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C & five with 8.01-9.00 C.
1791-1800: one year with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, two with 8.01-9.00 C & seven with 9.01-10.00 C.
Modern Warm Period
1891-1900: no years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, three with 8.01-9.00 C, six with 9.01-10.00 C & one with 10.01-11.00 C.
1991-2000: no years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C, no with 8.01-9.00 C, four with 9.01-10.00 C & six with 10.01-11.00 C.
Jeff Alberts – do you not understand the concept of averages? Of course there is a global temperature (averaged). We just don’t know well what it is.
I might add that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by
===============================
The “end of the Little Ice Age” is simply an assumption. How can anyone say it ended when we don’t know the cause?
Tell us what caused the Little Ice Age. If it truly has ended, then the cause must also have ended at the same time. Then explain why, whatever caused the end of the Little Ice Age, why that didn’t cause the Modern Warming?
Because the Little Ice Age tells us that natural variability is high. Which is contrary to the assumptions of the Climate Models, that believe natural variability is low, and thus climate must respond primarily to forcings/feedbacks.
But if natural variability is high, then climate may simply be responding to randomness. Like a drunk walking down a hallway, or the temperature of a house when controlled by a thermostat.
Within limits, climate may simply wander left-right, high-low, without the need of any forcings/feedback.
Regarding my “why zero” question – anyone willing to calculate the longest possible non-zero trend ending any time before Aug 1, 2014?
From the Department of “Warming is not in the atmosphere, it’s in the oceans.”
Claim : 7E+22 Joules gained/decade
How much warning is that, exactly?
Volume of the oceans taken from:
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
Intermediate results are shown
10 yr/decade
= 7E+21 Joules/yr
4.186 Joules/deg/g
= 1.67224E+21 Degree-grams/yr
1000 g/kg
= 1.67224E+18 degree-kg/yr
1000 kg/m3
= 1.67224E+15 degree-cu m/yr
1,000,000,000 cu m/cu km
= 1,672,241 degree-cu km/yr
1,386,000,000 cu km of oceans
= 0.001206523 deg/year for all oceans
So excluding as a pittance the 10.6 million cu km of freshwater and ignoring the 30m cu km of ice, there is a claimed rise in ocean temperature of 0.0012 degrees per year taking place. The alarmist claim is that this represents a significant threat to the future of mankind.
My first response to the gain in heat content is, “So what?” My second is that this is an unmeasurably low value that is undetectable with any means we presently have deployed. It cannot possibly be derived from measurements. Oh – the (dubious) claim to support the assertion is that the rise is detectable in the form of a rise in seal level. Relative to what, and measured with what, exactly?
The thermal expansion of water at 4-15 deg C is well known. Is the expansion from 0.0012 degrees per year of ‘warming’ detectable by any existing technology? How would we separate groundwater pumping, ice melting/gain, sea floor changes and internal heat effects from thermal expansion in the absence of measurements of temperature?
When Arctic sea ice melts the volume of sea water involved drops as it rises above the melting point because 2 degree water is more dense than 0 degree water. The physics of this are well known. Does this claimed net expansion calculation take into consideration the shrinkage of the water rising when in the range of melting to 4 deg C? Quite a large volume of the ocean surface waters are below 4 deg C all year. Any slight temperature rise in cold water would cause a drop in volume until it exceeded 4 degrees.
Is there any traceable means to show that human emissions of CO2 cause any or all of this claimed rise in OHC?
The general AGW claim is that human-sourced CO2 is retaining heat upon the Earth. In the absence of an atmospheric temperature rise, the claim is that the heat is accumulating, but being stored in the oceans, To my knowledge, there is no mechanism offered for CO2 to increase the temperature of the oceans but not the atmosphere. If the oceans were warmer, they would lose more heat to the air, and the air is not warmer casting doubt on the claim.
If there is some deep ocean heating and there is no temperature rise in the middle and upper layers, then the heat cannot be coming from the Sun, it has to be coming from Earth’s internal processes.
Which raises again my first reaction, “So What?”
ferd berple says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm
For me, the LIA ended when average temperature returned to & stayed above the 3000 year trend line, the slope of which is down. That occurred, depending upon whether looking at decadal or 30-year averages, around 1850-70. It’s also visible in the rising trend line since mid-19th century (although of course the trend has been up since c. 1700, ie the trough of the LIA). There was a late 19th century warming, an early 20th century warming & a late 20th century warming, separated by flat to down cycles.
IMO the causes of warmer & colder spells within both glacials & interglacials share some of the same causes, which are more numerous & extreme in glacials.
There is a school of thought that climate is too chaotic for genuine cycles to exist, but IMO this hypothesis is easily falsified by the obvious cyclicality of glacial & interglacial cycles. If those exist, as they objectively do (along with cycles within glacials), then why not lesser cycles within interglacials, as well? There are also much longer cycles, on the scale of 150 million years & more.
The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade.
=============
that warming, if it exists, is confined to the deep oceans. We know from Argo that it is not occurring above 2k meters.
the overturning rate on the deep oceans is on the order of 1000 years. we can be reasonably confident that people 1000 years from now don’t need our help with their climate. If they do, then place $1 in the bank, and leave the proceeds to people 1000 years from now…
…due to the power of compound interest, 1000 years from now your $1 will be more than enough to pay for any warming you may have caused. Allowing for a doubling every 20 years, your original investment will be worth about 30 times the current US national debt, so maybe your can lend Uncle Sam a hand as well.
Arno Arrak (August 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm) “If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to decrease, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. ”
That is not how weather works. Thickness in any particular location is due to movement of air masses. Thus weather causes weather. Rainfall is not a function of average thickness from CO2 since that average increase is negligible in comparison to any weather change, almost every diurnal change, seasonal changes, etc.
For me, the LIA ended when average temperature returned to & stayed above the 3000 year trend line
=============
but doesn’t this really argue that the cause of the LIA ended when the trend line started going up? Perhaps 100-200 years earlier? That whatever was causing the cooling must have ended much earlier, for the trend line to start upward and eventually cross the 3000 year trend line.
Warmist Claptrap (August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm) “Well it was an alias, but useless now, since I’ve had to cancel it since YOU breached site policy by revealing a commenters e-mail address, Now it became a spam bucket because of your actions we have had to abandon that alias”
Your email was revealed at August 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm and you already got spam?
and, if the cause of the LIA ended much earlier, then how do we know that the current warming is not simply a continuation of the trend started perhaps 300 years ago?
for example, think about winter. Dec 23 is the shortest day of the year. But temperatures continue to fall until about February, and then start to warm up. So why would the LIA be any different. Whatever caused the LIA may well have ended years before temperatures started to rise, which means they could still be rising until 1997 for the same reason they initially started to rise 300 years earlier.
Phil. posted a youtube video showing ice on the Delaware rtiver.
Pretty thin ice there, Phil. No comparison to what George Washington encountered during the LIA.
But Phil. is a climate alarmist who believes that global warming is gonna getcha. Disregarding his belief system is the best course of action for rational folks.
ferd berple says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:17 pm
The LIA didn’t end IMO at its trough in the 1690s, although I guess you could view that the Modern WP started then, ie c. 1700. However I prefer the standard definition of the period, ending in mid-19th century because it jibes with the sort of trend analysis I do in investing.
In market & economic analysis, you can only know for sure in hindsight when a trend, such as a recession or bull or bear market, has reversed. For a recession, the standard definition requires two consecutive Qs of negative “growth”. For a secular market trend reversal, at least two counter-(previous) trend cycles are needed.
The LIA was a secular cold period, but like all secular trends, it contained sharp counter-trend “rallies”, perhaps most noticeably the remarkably rapid recovery from the Maunder Minimum 1690s trough in the early 18th century. But that rally was not followed by more warming. Rather T cooled or stayed flat until the pro-trend crash of the Dalton Minimum, which, as you’d expect in trend analysis, was less severe than the Maunder trough. Then another flat to down period occurred until mid-19th century. Had the late 19th century warming & the flat to cool phase after it been followed by another cooling spell in the early 20th century rather than a warming, then the LIA would still be in effect. But the first warming wasn’t & so the LIA isn’t. This trend reversal was confirmed, as market analysts say, but the third warming cycle of the now new secular warm period, the Modern.
ferd berple says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:20 pm
As noted above, the LIA didn’t end in 1700. That was just its trough. Cold persisted as the major, ie secular, trend until c. 1850 (a little later in my estimation). From the late 19th century, the trend reversed such that we’re now in a secular warming phase, but it won’t last. The long term secular trend is down, so Earth is most likely to revert to that falling trend.
However, this could be a super interglacial, so instead of the next glaciation beginning in a few to several thousand years, it could take tens of thousands.
dbstealey says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Nor is the Delaware the same body of water it was back in its less heat- & substance-polluted, unchanneled, free-flowing days. Besides which, it’s the average that matters. Sure there are cold winters in which ice forms now, but that was usual during the LIA.
Regarding anecdotal data, you mention ice fairs on the Thames. There are good reasons why the Thames froze over during some winters in past centuries. Before the construction of the Thames Embankment in the 1860s, the Thames was broader and shallower meaning that it flowed more slowly. It froze more easily, therefore, in the pre-1860s. There is plenty of evidence that the Thames froze over numerous times and not just during the LIA. The following “MWP” years also saw the Thames completely frozen
1063: for fourteen weeks;
Subsequent dates have more evidence than presented by Charles Mackay!
1076: The river was again frozen over.
1092: (from the Saturday Magazine 1835 -)
[In] 1092, in the reign of William Rufus, is recorded a frost “whereby”, in the words of an old chronicler, “the great streams [of England] were congealed in such a manner that they could draw two hundred horsemen and carriages over them; whilst at their thawing, many bridges, both of wood and stone, were borne down, and divers water-mills were broken up, and carried away.
1114: for four weeks;
1150: According to The History and Survey of London and Its Environs from the Earliest Period by B Lambert, 1806 –
We are told that in the year 1150 the summer proved so extremely wet, that a dearth almost equal to famine ensued ; and the winter of this year was remarkable for a severe frost, which commenced on the ninth of December, and continued till the beginning of March, during a great part of which time, the Thames was frozen so hard as to admit of carts and other carriages passing over the ice.
On the contrary. It is you that is perfectly happy to lap up any mythical drivel if it suits your preconceived ideas.
There is a school of thought that climate is too chaotic for genuine cycles to exist, but IMO this hypothesis is easily falsified by the obvious cyclicality of glacial & interglacial cycles.
=============
the ocean tides on earth are chaotic. you cannot hope to calculate them from first principles the way climate models try and calculate climate. forcings and feedbacks yield nonsense. yet we do a reasonably good job of calculating the tides using what for want of a better name is astrology.
unfortunately there is a lot of scientific prejudice in applying ancient techniques to new problems. there is an insistence on “mechanism”. yet we learned to predict the orbit of the planets long before we knew about gravity. we learned to predict the seasons long before we knew anything about orbital mechanics.
have any of the climate models been able to do any better than the Farmer’s Almanac at predicting climate? I expect the answer is no.
Warmist Claptrap:
Your whinge at August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm which is here repeatedly refers to “our email address”.
“Our”? How many of you are there?
Richard
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.
=================
this, coupled with record CO2 emissions due to industrialization, argues strongly that while we may in theory understand the effects of CO2, the effects in practice don’t follow the theory.