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.
eric1skeptic says:
August 6, 2014 at 4:34 am
The last really cold year (average under eight degrees C) in the CET, as currently adjusted, was 1879. The last years under nine degrees C were 1985 and ’86, in the record as it now stands.
IMO it’s the bounce c. 1861-78 off another cold year (1860) in a cool decade (1851-60) which made 20th century climate researchers pick the mid-19th century as the end of the LIA, but the precise decade or so is fungible, IMO.
http://www.newtownweather.co.uk/cetdata/cetdata.html
That 1860s and ’70s bounce was followed, as bounces typically are, by a similar number of years on average cooler, c. 1879-97. Here are decadal averages, which don’t perfectly align with natural fluctuations:
1841-50: 9.10 degrees C
1851-60: 9.04
1861-70: 9.42
1871-80: 9.09
1881-90: 8.83
1891-1900: 9.27
1901-10: 9.07
1911-20: 9.33
The 1880s were also cold and snowy in the USA, perhaps a last blast of the LIA or just a strong first cooling cycle in the fledgling Modern Warm Period.
It appears as if cycles in the AMO might be shorter than in the PDO.
John Finn says:
I think warming from CO2 will be modest but that doesn’t mean I support every argument made by “sceptics”.
If any effect from CO2 is at most “modest”, why argue at all? It’s just not important; there are many other things that are more important regarding policy. CO2 is a non-issue. So again, why argue?
And putting quote marks around the word skeptics is disingenuous. Skeptics question. That’s what we do here. The problem with climate alarmists is that they can’t answer our questions.
Also, anyone who doesn’t accept that the MWP and the LIA were global events has an alarmist agenda. Those things happened. The LIA was one of the coldest episodes in the entire Holocene. Pretending it didn’t happen is also disingenuous.
For comparison, CET average for 1961-1990 is presently given as 9.48 degrees C and 9.75 for 1971-2000, but of course those “data” are suspect.
In any case, the 1860s and most of the ’70s were a leap well into the next century, so as good a place as any to start the Modern Warming Period, IMO.
sturgishooper (August 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm)
Fair enough, I can see how decade long cooling periods can overlay the long term rise. Note to John Finn, you can not just cherry pick a decade from sometime in the early 1800’s and another one in the early 1900’s and say “aha, they match!” That is just weather.
eric1skeptic says:
August 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Only an intent to lie with statistics could compel a commenter to look at two centuries in the CET without breaking them down and also comparing with what came before, when suitable data are available, IMO.
Others have pointed out that the Met has, I’m shocked! (Not!), warmed up the CET, as shown by among others, prominent British meteorologist and weather historian Philip Eden, who has a weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph.
Eden’s Website describes how the Met Office, after taking over from Manley following the latter’s death, changed the area and locations of some of the sites upon which Manley based his CET table to 1974. Eden developed his CET series after that date from sites of his choosing which he feels more closely resemble Manley’s original sites. No surprise that the discrepancies between the two sets are almost always warmer in the Met records. So the CET record after 1974 is generally warmer than it should be and is not to be relied upon.
http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html
http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/63265-1981-2010-philip-eden-cet-averages/
That said, here are the Met’s averages, comparing rates of temperate increase between 50-year averages:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/long-term-central-england-temperature-trends/
1941-1990 9.53 1881-1930 9.17
1961-2010 9.74 1901-1950 9.41
Increase 0.21 Increase 0.24
Still instructive, even if massaged. Warming from 1881 to 1930 is practically identical to that from 1941 to 2010, without cherry picking, since only the warm decade of the 1930s is left out.
Actually, the comparison of the 60 years 1881-1940 with the 60 years 1941-2000 would be even more instructive, IMO, although the first starts cold while the second period starts warm.
I meant to say above, comparing 1881-1930 with 1901-50 and 1941-90 with 1961-2010 periods, not 1941-2010. Sorry. Trying to talk on the phone and type at the same time apparently is more multi-tasking than I’m up to.
Oui! Ja!
Why are those data suspect?
sturgishooper
exactly right.
I had discussions with David Parker at the met office last year. He was the person who created the daily CET series from 1772.
He confirmed the current crop of stations appeared to have been running warm and they had been changed in recent years. Also that there was an allowance for UHI from 1976 although I suspect, bearing in mind virtually the whole of Britain is a heat island, that the allowance was not enough.
I think I have the pdf on the subject that I was sent by the Met office. Do you want me to dig it out?
tonyb
Bull. You’re just making stuff up. Eden’s readings are typically ~0.1 degrees higher than the Met Office since 2000.
I’ve had a look at this a couple of times over the years but can find no evidence that UHI is affecting the CET trend. You might have come across the Armagh Observatory data (1796-2002) which was ‘reconstructed’ in Butler et al (2005). This is the same Butler who with Johnson produced a paper which claimed to show a link between solar cycle length and temperature. David Archibald regularly cited B&J until it became obvious that the SCL/temperature relationship had broken down.
Anyway, the Armagh Observatory record was claimed by many sceptics to be an example of an ideal location for the recording of temperatures. The location was basically unchanged in 200 years. Apart from Archibald, other more qualified sceptics such as Doug Hoyt also supported the Armagh data.
Armagh is, on average, about 200 miles from the CE region (Birmingham to Belfast is ~220 miles).
I’ve just downloaded the Armagh data again. For the 100 years up to 2002 (the last year in the Armagh record) the trends are
Armagh +0.072 degrees per decade
CET +0.073 degrees per decade
For the last 26 years of the Armagh record (1975-2002) the trends are
Armagh +0.38 degrees per decade
CET +0.35 degrees per decade
Armagh data is here: http://climate.arm.ac.uk/calibrated/airtemp/mon-3ser-clean4.txt
I get a similar result whenever I use other stations. I’ve looked at a number in the CET region – but not included in the CET data.
I picked a decade during the Dalton Minimum and compared it with a decade exactly 100 years later. The Dalton Minimum was supposed to be a period of extreme cold. But, Ok, fair enough we won’t use individual decades. Does that mean we can’t use the past decade to show that global warming has stopped.
“The Dalton Minimum was supposed to be a period of extreme cold”
Not while stored ocean heat is released into the atmosphere. The sun bottomed out around 1810 and the CET (from your graph) a few years later. The past decade is not sufficient to show warming has stopped. Most of us didn’t make a big deal about flat temperatures in mid to late 2000’s when we posted. Now it has been 17-18 years so it is starting to become significant. Soon it will be 20, then 25…
Mr Finn asks whether we can use the past decade to show that global warming has stopped. No: but we can use the past 17 years 10 months to show that, on the RSS satellite record, there has been no global warming at all; or we can use a similar period to show that on the mean of all five key datasets there has been no warming distinguishable from the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties.
Additionally, we can show that the discrepancy between the rate of warming predicted with “substantial confidence” by the models in 1990 and reported by the IPCC that year, on the one hand, and real-world observation, on the other, is very large indeed. Over a quarter of a century the models have predicted twice the warming that has actually occurred.
Before we spend any more trillions on making what may be a non-problem go away, it would be best to wait a few more years. For CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, but none of the key adverse consequences of that fact, including global temperature change, has come to pass.
One thing that the Great Pause tells us is that there is no hurry. The climate is no warmer than it was when the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report was published almost two decades ago. There is manifestly no need to take panic measures. There are many real environmental problems in the world, and they need to be dealt with now. Let us take the mature decision to deal with the most immediate problems first, and let the temperature record unfold a little longer before we invest any more of other people’s money on something that – in the increasingly unlikely event that it needs dealing with at all, certainly does not need to be dealt with now.
Ah yes, of course, I forgot about the “lag”. But, hang on a minute, the CET graph shows a dip in 1780 – when solar activity was high. Let’s take a look at the decadal mean temperatures
1781-1790 8.9
1791-1800 9.1
1801-1810 9.1
1811-1820 8.8
How did that happen? Did the oceans and the CE region somehow anticipate the upcoming Dalton Minimum. The final decade of the DM was cooler than the first 2 decades but it did include the massive Tambura eruption and it wasn’t appreciably cooler than 1781-90. Interestingly, 1811-1820 was the decade when the Royal Admiralty observed an unusual loss of polar ice (1817) so I’m not sure how much influence ocean heat had on the CET temperatures.
By the way, it’s not “my” graph. The graph uses the data which was compiled by Gordon Manley and used by Hubert Lamb in his reconstruction of past temperatures.
There is no need to look at decades on decimal boundaries, that is as arbitrary choosing to use 10 year averages. Manley’s graph is sufficient to see the fluctuations based on solar and other natural factors. Nothing really jumps out. Mainly cold in the 1800’s, cool in the 1900’s, and warm from the early 80’s to present. I wouldn’t expect Tambora or other volcanoes to show up, there are two oceans in between England and most of them.
I can’t explain the dip in the early 1780’s coming after the big sunspot peak in 1778, but there are always going to be some local fluctuations and the 1778 and 1788 peaks came in an otherwise low solar activity regime.
Mr Finn makes the IPCC’s mistake of using decadal means rather than longer-term trends. The most startling aspecButts of the Central England record are its faithfulness in reproducing the Maunder Minimum, showing the decline in temperature from the outset of the record in 1659 to the end of the century, followed by the very rapid recovery of temperature at the end of the Minimum. The solar physicists (see e.g. Solanki et al., 2005) find the Maunder minimum to have been the period of least solar activity in the past 11,400 years, and there is a growing body of literature suggesting that the grand maximum of 1925-1995, centered on 1960, was also rare, if not unique, over the same timescale. No surprise, then, that some global warming occurred both at the end of the grand minimum and at the beginning of the near-grand maximum. Separating out these and other undeniably significant natural influences from the also possibly significant anthropogenic influence is not easy. What remains clear is that the rate of global warming since 1950 is very much less than the models had predicted, and this begins to suggest that the pudding has been overegged by the IPCC and the modelers.
I used long term (100 year) trend to show the Dalton minimum was no different to any other period in the 18th and 19th centuries. I used the decacdal means to show that there was a cool decade before the Dalton Minimum started.
You really need to look at Leif Svalgaard’s research into this area. The evidence is compelling and -contrary to what you say – acceptance by the wider solar community is growing. Solar activity in the 20th century was not significantly different to solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries.
But since you seem unconvinced why don’t we have a bet. You say there was a grand maximum between 1925 and 1995 and presumably you think that this strongly influenced the 20th century temperature trend. Now that the “grand maximum” is over the global temperature mean should eventually return to 1970s levels by 2025. That’s 30 years after the end of the Grand Maximum.
I’m prepared to have a few quid on it – what about you?
Leif’s Ap index page seems to be screwed up (pre 1900). Instead I plotted the SSN data from here http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt and it looks like this: http://shpud.com/SSN.png Counting the blue dots above the 100 line (second from the bottom) I see a lack from about 1785 through about 1835 but the CET went cooler sooner, stayed cooler later than that and had less cold period in 1820’s through early 1830’s. Not a great match except for the general coolness.
Then the next lack of blue dots above 100 is about 1870 through about 1930. Another cold to cool (mostly cool) period for the CET.
What Monckton of Brenchley just mentioned is the extra blue dots above the 100 line from the 1940’s through early 90’s finally down at the 2000 peak. It’s a correlation with warming that is hard to ignore. My estimate of the warming from solar TSI alone is 0.05C of warming per 1W/m2 of TSI increase per 1C of sensitivity. Thus a 0.15C increase in temperature in the late 20th century (warmist), 0.1C (mildist) or 0.05C (coolist) from TSI alone, not counting any other effects of higher solar activity. Those other effects include higher frequency UV which destroys the ozone layer, cools the stratosphere and warms the troposphere, lower GCR which results in fewer low clouds with varying effects on weather and climate.
I’d put money on no rise by 2020. Nobody claims there is no rise from manmade CO2. But to really have no rise by 2020: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2014_v5.png A moderate El Nino reaching 0.4 (red line) in 2020 would indicate zero warming over 2010. Zero warming is a safe bet. Actual cooling is more of a stretch, but possible.
That’s not the same thing. Christopher Monckton has argued for a modern maximum between 1925 and 1995 and, I assume, that this has been responsible for 20th century warming trend. . The maximum is now over so temperatures should start to fall. Not immediately, perhaps, but I’m giving it 30 years after the end of the maximum to detect a cooling trend.
You don’t appear to read WUWT blog comments very closely.
The SSN data is almost certainly wrong. This issue is at the heart of my disagreement with CM. This comment by Leif Svalgaard explains the stages that led to a new reconstruction of past SSN.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/#comment-1704123
Point 17 states:
17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now. In particular, TSI now is very likely the same as it was 100 years ago
“That’s not the same thing. Christopher Monckton has argued for a modern maximum between 1925 and 1995 and, I assume, that this has been responsible for 20th century warming trend.”
You assume wrong. He simply says that the 20th century warming trends are not unprecedented and acknowledges that it is an additive combination of manmade and natural warming.
“You don’t appear to read WUWT blog comments very closely.”
I do but ignore trolls who claim that CO2 warming does not exist.
“17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now. In particular, TSI now is very likely the same as it was 100 years ago”
No argument with that. The recent TSI peak looks almost exactly like the 1907 peak.
It is not clear what point Mr Finn is making. There was a solar Grand Minimum from 1645-1715 that was well reflected in the Central England temperature record. There was a near-Grand Maximum fro 1925-1995, during which solar activity was almost as great as at any time in the past 11,400 years. The change in solar activity from the Maunder Minimum to the near-Grand Maximum may well have been the greatest in the past 11,400 years. It should come as no surprise, then, that it is warmer now than it was in the Little Ice Age. Separating the contributions of Man from those of Nature, including the Sun, is not easy.
However, it is plain that the models have assumed a far larger anthropogenic contribution than is plausible, for the temperature record shows half the warming the models predicted a quarter of a century ago. This discrepancy between prediction and reality is undeniable. The models were wrong. Therefore, we can have little confidence that they will be right henceforward. In the temperature data to date, there is no – repeat no – definite evidence of any anthropogenic influence at all. I suspect that there may have been some, but probably not very much.