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

clip_image002_thumb.pngEl Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

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

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

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

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

Updated key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø Since 1 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

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

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014 – more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

449 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:02 am

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

Weather Dave
August 2, 2014 11:06 am

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

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 11:08 am

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

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

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

justaskin
August 2, 2014 11:14 am

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

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 11:16 am

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

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

August 2, 2014 11:18 am

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

mellyrn
August 2, 2014 11:20 am

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

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:20 am

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

August 2, 2014 11:20 am

Fighting foia
Damn auto correct on phone

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:22 am

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

August 2, 2014 11:30 am

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

Daryl M
August 2, 2014 11:33 am

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

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 11:49 am

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

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 11:49 am

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

Beta Blocker
August 2, 2014 11:52 am

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

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

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

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

Harry Passfield
August 2, 2014 11:53 am

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

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

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

H Grouse
August 2, 2014 11:54 am

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

Very soothing, does wonders for blood pressure.

JJ
August 2, 2014 11:54 am

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

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

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

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

So is there something special about the current pause?

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

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

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

milodonharlani
August 2, 2014 12:02 pm

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

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

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

richardscourtney
August 2, 2014 12:07 pm

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

greymouser70
August 2, 2014 12:07 pm

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

August 2, 2014 12:11 pm

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

Warmist Claptrap
August 2, 2014 12:20 pm

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

highflight56433
August 2, 2014 12:24 pm

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