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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
449 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Finn
August 3, 2014 2:27 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:39 pm
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.

It’s not a ludicrous claim. It’s fact and your attempt to show an LIA does nothing of the sort.

1691-1700: five years with ave. Ts of 7.01-8.00 C & five with 8.01-9.00 C.

The data for this period is completely unreliable. You need to read up on how it was determined.

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

As it happens there is a temperature peak during 1891-1900. The decadal average is .~9,27 deg while the 1791-1800 decadal average is slightly lower at ~9.09 deg but that’s a ‘cherry pick’. The 2 decades either side of 1891-1900 (i.e. 1881-90 and 1901-10) were both cooler than 1791-1800. The decadal average for 1821-30 of ~9.36 deg is the highest decadal average for the 1800s and isn’t matched until 1921-30 – 100 years later. .

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.

I’d keep quiet about 1991-2000 if I were you since it’s decadal average is considerably higher than any decade in the 19th century and a good bit higher than most other decades in the 20th century. It does sort of suggest something unusual has been happening since ~1980.

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 2:29 pm

ferd berple says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Clearly the climate models are worse than worthless for public policy purposes. They commit the fallacy of begging the question, ie assuming what they intend to demonstrate. They’re designed to yield a desired result, ie monotonic increase in GASTA with increase in CO2. But Mother Nature has slapped them down since the late 1990s. From the late ’70s to ’90s, they worked OK purely by accident, since T & CO2 just happened both to be going up during that internal. They also sucked in hindcast as well as forecast, so were never adequately validated. The GCMs were born falsified, which is why a massive propaganda & suppression program is required to maintain their phony results.
Many here resist the idea of climatic cycles within interglacials, but IMO their existence is well supported by paleo proxy data & instrumental observations in the Holocene & proxies in previous interglacials, as per the links I’ve posted in the past. Leif for instance isn’t convinced that Bond Cycles are genuine. IMO they are, &, as per your comment, I also think we’re getting closer to understanding what drives them, if I may commit the heresy of imagining that something other than CO2 “forces” climate change.

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 2:34 pm

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Kitchener:
I write to draw attention to your post at August 3, 2014 at 1:00 pm which is here and addresses the excuse for global warming having stopped which proclaims that heat is accumulating in the oceans.
Your excellent post is useful reference for others because it says and expands upon

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?

I made the same point to the astonishingly stupid troll who posted as ‘chuck’ on another thread where eventually he was deleted for using a false email identity.
This latest warmunist meme of “the oceans are gaining heat so global warming has not stopped” seems to have been circulated as a campaigning issue by ‘troll central’. Your fine post provides the responses people need when confronted with it.
Richard

August 3, 2014 2:37 pm

John Finn says
Were there a such thing as ice ages in you view? During the medieval warming period they grew grapes for wine in northern England. The periods of population increase on the steppes of Russia from warming periods caused successive waves of people invading Europe and China when the climate again began to cool. Climate change is just a part of the nature this chaotic system. It is the idea that it is static which is ridiculous.

William Astley
August 3, 2014 2:47 pm

In reply to:
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“
William:
The warmists did not look for another explanation for the cooling of the stratopause. i.e. Cooling of the stratopause does not prove CO2 caused the cooling. The warmists are ignoring the observation that disproves their theory. (See no warming of tropical troposphere below.)
A reduction in low level cloud cover will cause cooling of the stratopause. (The refected short wave radiation is absorbed by ozone in the stratopause so less cloud cover results in less reflected short wave radiation and a colder stratopause).
The warmist are ignoring the fact that there is no warming of the tropical troposphere at 8 km which is a fundamental prediction of their theory. The warming of the troposphere is required to warm the surface of the planet by radiation. The predicted warming of the troposphere at roughly 8 km above the surface of the planet by CO2 then increases the amount of water vapour in that region which causes the amplification. The predicted increase in water vapour is not due to increased evaporation but rather the direct CO2 warming. There is unfortunately no measured tropical tropospheric hot spot which is observational evidence that the something is inhibiting the CO2 warming of the tropical troposphere.
The CO2 increase has almost no direct affect on temperatures in the lower regions of the atmosphere due to amount of water vapour in the lower regions (water vapour and CO2 overlap in absorbed radiation) and the higher number of CO2 molecules in the lower regions of the atmosphere. Higher in the atmosphere there is less water vapour and due to the reduction in pressure less CO2 molecules. It is for these reasons (less water vapour and comparatively less CO2 molecules be the anthropogenic change) so that the region of the atmosphere at 8km (varies depending on latitude) where there is predicted to be the most direct CO2 warming. It is big thing therefore if there is no warming at 8km in the tropical troposphere.
Where is the hot spot that the CO2 theory predicts and that is require to amplify warming in the tropics? There is no observed tropic troposphere hot spot!!!! This observation indicates there is one or more fundamental errors or omissions in the warmist models compared to the actual atmosphere. The problem (difference between real world vs what is assumed to be the case) is there is free charge in the atmosphere at higher altitudes which shifts the emitted frequency of the CO2 molecules which thereby enables the radiation to escape.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by Douglass et al.
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 2:59 pm

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Why should I keep quiet about 1991-2000? It was a naturally warm decade well within normal limits for the Holocene.
Any other series of comparable comparisons would demonstrate the validity of the LIA. Take for example 60 year periods to try to capture natural PDO variability. Those during the LIA would show average temperatures lower than during the Modern WP, as well as during the even warmer Medieval WP (based upon Lamb’s extrapolation backwards). Do the arithmetic yourself. Here is my best guess at current & past PDOs (they’re not quite this regular, but again, good enough for sake of comparison):
1977-2036 (now entering the cool phase)
1917-1976 (height of warm phase a lot closer to the recent warm phase than rigged numbers show)
1857-1916 (first PDO of the Modern Warm Period)
1797-1856 (last PDO of the LIA, including the colder than usual Dalton Minimum)
1737-1796 (pretty flat phases, despite exceptionally cold 1740)
1677-1736 (Interesting for containing both an unusually cold cool phase & rapidly rising warm phase rebound)
1617-1676 (have to rely on Lamb’s reconstruction for prior to 1660).
Lamb used 50 year periods. There has not yet been a 50 year period in the Modern WP warmer than the hottest of those during the Medieval, while those during the LIA, even the hottest in the early 18th century, doesn’t come close to those of the Medieval.
The CET numbers are perfectly adequate for such a comparison, as they’re supported by every other sort of evidence. I know how CET is compiled, including the fact that its figures for the past 30 years are too high, not adequately adjusted for UHI & changed atmospheric conditions. But still OK for the comparison I made.
You can’t claim that there is no LIA in the CET, then assert that the CET data aren’t reliable enough to detect such a signal.

August 3, 2014 3:03 pm

Mr Finn, in saying something special has been going on since 1980, with the implication that it must be to do with global warming, not only perpetrates the fallacy of false cause, in that there is no reliable way to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic causes of warming, but also omits to mention the great el Nino of 1990, which had two predecessors in the past 300 years, and which cannot have been caused by CO2 because CO2 rises monotonically and the great el Nino was a spike which, however, elevated global temperature by around a sixth of a Kelvin, suggesting that the source of the heat may have been subsea-volcanic. The plain fact is that we do not know either way, but we do know that the overall rate of warming since 1950 is just 0.12 K/decade, and that since 1990 it is just 0.14 K/decade – not exactly a thrilling acceleration.
The main point remains. The extreme predictions of the models on which the scare was built have been falsified by events. The honest thing to do in the circumstances is to do what the IPCC has done, accept that the models were wrong, and greatly reduce the near-term projections. The IPCC ought also to have reduced its longer-term projections as well, but of course that would be fatal to its continued existence.

August 3, 2014 3:07 pm

I do want to echo Richard Courtney’s congratulations to Crispin in Waterloo or wherever, who has provided the specific-heat-capacity calculations that show just how little the oceans are warming when one converts the claimed heat content change for the oceans into Kelvin. The rate of ocean warming is barely above a tenth of a Kelvin per century. No surprise, then, that the atmosphere is not warming.
A question for Crispin: All other things being equal, if the oceans warm at 0.1 Kelvin per century, at what rate will the atmosphere warm in response to the ocean warming?

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 3:10 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm
I assume you mean 1997 rather than 1990.
IMO the strongest recent El Niño occurred in 1997-98. Another “super” El Niño happened in 1982-83. There was a triple El Niño later in the ’80s, but IMO nothing special transpired in 1990.

August 3, 2014 3:18 pm

Mikodonharlani is right. The Great El Niño was 1998. My typo -sorry.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 3:56 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm
I know how CET is compiled, including the fact that its figures for the past 30 years are too high, not adequately adjusted for UHI & changed atmospheric conditions.

So tell us in what way the UHI adjustment is insufficient. Give us a link to any analysis you’ve done which leads you to this conclusion. This should be interesting.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 4:20 pm

Bob Boder says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:19 pm
John Flynn says
John if the oceans are warming but the atmosphere isn’t, what is the cause?

Have a look at this Roy Spencer post
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 4:39 pm

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm
It is indeed good:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/16/revisiting-temperature-reconstructions-used-in-climate-change-modeling/
Devastating, in fact, to the reliability of Met numbers since at least 1981.

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 4:44 pm

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
PS: Not only is the warming from c. 1977 to 2006 well within normal bounds for the Holocene, most of the 11,400 years of which have been hotter than this interval, but our current interglacial has been cooler than at least two of the previous four. The Eemian, the last interglacial (during MIS 5), was a lot hotter than the Holocene (plus longer), as was that of MIS 11 (a lot longer). Those of MIS 7 & 9 (possibly shorter than the Holocene) might have experienced peak heat less than the Holocene.

August 3, 2014 4:57 pm

John Finns says
Did you even read the post from Roy Spencer that you put in your reply?
If you did I guess this means you now admit that your argument was wrong!

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 5:00 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Eight is close to 0 on the keyboard.
Back to your earlier comment on a correlation between seismic activity & ENSO, note that the 1982/83 super El Niño is associated with the El Chichon eruption, plus earthquakes, & a period with a high number of earthquakes coincides with the super-duper El Niño of 1997/98.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/99EO00202/pdf
Activity around Easter Island, where the East Pacific Rise meets the Nazca Plate, seems to correlate the best.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 5:07 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm
John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm
It is indeed good:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/16/revisiting-temperature-reconstructions-used-in-climate-change-modeling/
Devastating, in fact, to the reliability of Met numbers since at least 1981.

Ok – let me tell you my experiences. I live slap bang in the Central England area. I can assure you that the area has warmed quite appreciably since 1980. I have access to a number of local weather records and I know exactly where they have come from. I know the history of the areas and the level of urbanisation that has taken place.. I can provide a number of local temperature records from locations which have changed little over the past 60 or 70 years. I can tell you that the temperature trends of these locations is higher – and in some cases considerably higher – than the CET trend over the last 40 years. Hadley have compensated for UHI in the CET record. In my opinion – they have OVER-compensated.
As an aside, I find it laughable that you trust the pre-1700 CET observations but cast doubt on the more recent record. .

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 5:16 pm

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Not laughable at all. Adjustments since the 1980s have been intentionally corrupted with bias. Reconstructions before 1700 were done in good faith by a real scientist, Dr. Lamb, without an agenda.
Talk to Tony Brown, this blog’s expert on the CET, about your local records. I don’t doubt that it warmed in central England from c. 1977 to early in this century. That’s exactly what I would expect during the warm phase of the PDO, especially during a Warm Period like the Modern, Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian or Holocene Climatic Optimum, as opposed to a Cold Period, like the LIA or Dark Ages. I do however question the magnitude of the recent warming as reported by the Met Office & other gatekeeping druids.
But nothing you said is an argument against the Met’s bumbling (at best) with the records since 1981 in the link I posted. You asked for evidence of failure properly to adjust for the UHI effect. I provided it.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 5:17 pm

Bob Boder says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm
John Finns says
Did you even read the post from Roy Spencer that you put in your reply?
If you did I guess this means you now admit that your argument was wrong!

In what way is my argument wrong?
RS shows that the oceans can warm while the surface doesn’t. He doesn’t agree that this is what has happened but only looks at post-2004 data. We need to examine a much longer period to assess changes in wind speed. The “pause” is supposed to go back as far as 1996.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 5:25 pm

Bob Boder says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Further to my previous post, t’s worth noting this comment by Roy Spencer
I only bring this issue up because I think there are enough legitimate problems with global warming theory to not get distracted by arguing over issues which are reasonably well understood.
I think most of us will agree with that, Roy. Unfortunately there are others who disagree and the result is that genuine sceptics are labelled as ‘deniers’ and ‘cranks’.

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 5:27 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Maybe I should have said warm phase of the AMO, since it’s not in precise synch with the PDO & central England lies more under Atlantic oscillatory control.
Perhaps not surprisingly, strong warm phases tend to follow unusually cold phases. There’s no better example in the CET than the powerful hot flash of c. 1710 to 1739 following the extreme cold phase of c. 1680 to 1709. As with glacial periods, swings tend to be more extreme during cooler than warmer periods.

milodonharlani
August 3, 2014 5:33 pm

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Few who post here “deny” that CO2 can produce a warming effect under some real world conditions. In fact, most are barred because they belong to the “Skydragon Slayer” cult, whose members have well earned their exclusion.

Matthew R Marler
August 3, 2014 5:36 pm

John Finn: Have a look at this Roy Spencer post
By what mechanism can the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere cause warming of the deep ocean without warming the surface and troposphere? Sure it is possible in special conditions for the deep ocean to warm without the surface and troposphere warming, but how can that be caused by atmospheric CO2 accumulation?

August 3, 2014 5:39 pm

John Finn says, August 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm:
“RS shows that the oceans can warm while the surface doesn’t. He doesn’t agree that this is what has happened but only looks at post-2004 data. We need to examine a much longer period to assess changes in wind speed. The “pause” is supposed to go back as far as 1996.”
That’s not the issue, John Finn. And I’m quite sure you know that. Of course the bulk of the oceans can warm without the surface and the troposphere doing so. But that simply means that it’s not the atmosphere doing it. Because in that case, the mechanism would have to be that first the troposphere warms, then the surface and THEN the bulk of the oceans.
‘CO2 heat’ (for lack of a better word) can’t just magically turn up in the ocean out of nowhere. It can’t heat the ocean directly. Because the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere. It will have to make the temperature gradient away from the surface smaller which in turn makes the gradient through the surface to the bulk underneath smaller. And THEN the solar heat down there will have a harder time getting out. That’s the theory, isn’t it …? But then we need to see tropospheric warming first, then surface warming and then the corresponding ocean warming. We can’t see no tropospheric warming, then no surface warming and then still ocean warming.

August 3, 2014 5:54 pm

Finn
The argument is that it is possible in Roy Spencer’s article but it is not a significant cause of ocean warming. Technically there can be a transfer but it is also not the cause of the pause in atmospheric warming or the cause of supposed ocean warming.
If the oceans are warming this is not the cause. If the oceans are warming what is the cause?

1 10 11 12 13 14 18