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.
richard verney says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm
“It is because of pressure,”
..
If pressure makes things warmer, then…..
Surface of the moon has no pressure and is 123 degrees C.
Surface of the earth has 1 atm pressure …….shouldn’t it be warmer than the moon?
markstoval says:
August 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Disclaimer I admit that age and eyesight problems might cause me to be more sensitive of the white-space issue than some of the young bucks here, but I would wager that I am not alone.
______________
What? Speak up.
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
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.
…
Aren’t you implying here that the water temp is driving the air temperature? If thats the case then why are you arguing the opposite (that the air temp is actually charging the oceans) to explain the pause?
John Finn Re oceans see my 12:36pm post above also note the excellent work of Lyman and Johnson. Their latest compilation of the trends in OHC shows that the oceans are cooling from the top down as we might expect on a world which is just entering a cooling trend. see table 1 at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Quote
“Table 1.
Warming reported as heat flux applied to Earth’s entire surface area (in W m-2) corresponding to trends in annual REP OHCA estimates from unweighted linear fitsfrom benchmark years through 2011 for different depths of integration (left column).
A benchmark year is defined as the year in which sampling coverage all layers being considered first exceeds 50%, and remains > 50% thereafter. Layer warming trends over time periods during which coverage in a layer is < 50% in any year, indicated here by a dash, are not reported.
Time Period
Depth layer 1956–2011 1967–2011 1983–2011 2004–2011
0–100 m 0.06 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.01 W m-2
0–300 m 0.18 W m-2 0.24 W m-2 0.19 W m-2
0–700 m – – 0.46 W m-2 0.30 W m-2
0–1800 m – – – 0.56 W m-2
You will note that the heat flux in the 0-100 m level declined almost 90% when the period 1983-2011 is compared with 2004-11
Large declines between these periods are also seen when the same time periods are compared for 0-300 and 0-700m.
These numbers show that Trenberth's idea of the missing heat going into the oceans is fanciful.
It is time to recognize that the output of the IPCC models is useless for forecasting purposes.
For forecasts of the possible coming cooling based on the natural quasi periodicities seen in the temperature data see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpg.blogspot.com
AndyZ says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:29 pm
“Aren’t you implying”
…
All I am implying is that Richard cannot disregard the oceans when talking about warming.
Mr Finn continues to assert that the oceans are warming. Unfortunately we have no means of knowing whether that is the case. The Argo buoys – the least ill-resolved evidence we have – show very little increase in ocean heat content in the past decade, though they are far too sparse to allow any safe conclusions to be drawn. The error margins are enormous.
If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.
It used to be the average of five datasets, now it’s just RSS. Why? And it was 17y and 10 months 2 month ago also. Sure one can move the measured time to get a flat line once again, but won’t the new flat line be hotter than the first one. Hmmm?
CM writes
0
Fair enough, Christopher, but these are the CET trends for the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries.
1700-1800 -0.025 deg per decade (slight cooling
1800-1900 0.003 deg per decade ( flat)
1900-2000 0.065 deg per decade (warming)
So the 20th century warmed at 20 times the rate of the 19th century and most of that warming was in the last 30 or 40 years. There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.
In answer to “Rising”, I provide a monthly update showing the first of the datasets to be available, which is RSS. I also provide monthly updates on the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets once the UAH value becomes available, and the trend on the mean of those two datasets is compared with the predictions of the IPCC in 1990 and in 2013. And at less regular intervals I provide updates on all five of the principal global-temperature datasets.
And what all these data show beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the rate at which the world has warmed has been very considerably below what the models had predicted. No amount of spin or diversion will alter that fact: nor, in the end, will even the Marxstream media be able to conceal it from the people.
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Pressure alone doesn’t make something warmer – If you add air to a car’s tire it will heat up, but eventually conduction will bring back to the ambient temperature. The better answer is “It’s because of adiabatic compression” – the change in temperature when a gas is compressed when no heat is added or removed.
On a planetary scale it’s why the troposphere cools as you climb a mountain.
On Venus, if you go high in the atmosphere at 1 bar, Earth’s surface pressure, the temperature above Venus will be warm, but tolerable. It’s only if you take a “handful” of that air and lower it to the surface that it becomes so hot.
I hate to suggest this link, but there’s a lot more at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Ric Werme says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure. Both the Earth and the Moon receive about the same amount of energy per sq m.
Mr Finn continues to try to introduce diversions from the main point, which is that the world is not warming anything like as fast as the models had predicted. Now he attempts to say that there is no evidence of the Little Ice Age in the central England temperature record from 1700 to the present.
Sigh. The Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age, was from 1645-1715, almost all of it before the period ingeniously but misleadingly selected by Mr Finn. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate in the entire instrumental record was between 1694 and 1733, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C/century, or more than twice the fastest such rate measured since 1950. And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century. Both of these record high rates of increase occurred before the Industrial Revolution began. And both of them are mentioned in the head posting.
John Finn:
In my post addressed to you, justaskin and H Grouse at August 2, 2014 at 11:49 am I wrote
Thankyou for your reply at August 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm which begins saying
No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.
I would be grateful for any reference you can give me to your having disputed the definition of global warming prior to the cessation of global warming. I would especially appreciate this reference because this is the second WUWT thread where during this week you have adopted a definition that is not accepted as a method to pretend that global warming has not stopped.
You see, John Finn, I am familiar with warmunists changing their claims; e.g. anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) will cause heat waves, no cold spells, and AGW will cause droughts, no floods, and AGW will cause more storms, no less storms, and AGW will cause etc..
And warmunists always claim “We always said that”. So, please show where you said the definition of global warming was wrong prior to global warming having stopped.
Richard
John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm
There is abundant, overwhelming evidence not only of a Little Ice Age, but a Medieval Warm Period before it (warmer than the Modern Warm Period), a Dark Ages Cold Period before that, a Roman Warm Period before that (warmer than the Medieval WP), a Greek Dark Ages Cold Period before that, a Minoan Warm Period before that (warmer than the Roman WP), a cold period before that, an Egyptian Warm Period (about as warm as the Minoan), a cold period before that & the long Holocene Climatic Optimum before that (warmer than the Egyptian & Minoan WPs). Previous interglacials also show the same cycles, as of course so too do the longer glacial phases, but with temperature swings even greater.
Warming in the 18th century from the depths of the LIA (1690s) was more rapid than in the late 20th century, as also was the rate in the early 20th century. See the CET records below, bearing in mind that like all such climate “data” have been heavily stepped upon by trough-feeding, rent-seeking, scamming, CACA-spewing temperature “adjusters”. If properly adjusted for UHI, cleaner skies, etc, even the CET would probably show a warmer 1930s than 1990s (instead of its ostensible 0.49 degree average cooler 1931-40 v. 1991-2000, if my arithmetic be not in error), as is the case for reality in the USA.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/central-england-temperatures-runaway-warming-during-the-last-decade.html
John Finn says:
There isn’t very much evidence of a LIA.
That’s on your planet, John, where there probably isn’t evidence of a MWP either.
But here on Planet Earth, there was a very well documented LIA. It was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. If Mr Finn needs evidence, I can post plenty of links.
Lord Monckton is also correct when he notes that if the oceans were warming, the atmosphere would also be warming. But the ARGO buoy array — the most accurate measurements of ocean temperature available — show that at most depths the ocean is cooling. That is more empirical evidence showing that global warming has stopped.
John Finn
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1700108
Henry says
You simply ignore the fact that recording- and calibration procedures have greatly improved during the past 5 decades. e.g. recording is now done automatically. Indeed, I have challenged [anyone] to show me a re-calibration certificate of a thermometer dated before 1945
Perhaps you John have one of those certificates that I do not know of?
In answer to Mr Grouse, the Earth is cooler than the Moon because the Earth’s bond albedo is almost thrice that of the Moon, so that a greater fraction of incoming radiation is reflected harmlessly away.
H Grouse says:
Please explain to me why the Earth at 1 atm pressure is cooler than the Moon with 0 atm pressure.
Are you referring to the sunlit part of the moon? Or the dark part, with no sunlight?
Se the comment by Ric Werme, August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm.
Monckton: If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is not.
So you mean the ENSO and PDO cycles have no impact on global temperatures? Surely atmospheric temperatures respond much faster to heat inputs (or imbalances) then the oceans do. How do you explain the spike in global surface temperatures in 1998? And it is precisely that spike that keeps regression lines flat for 17 years… Meanwhile, 2000-2010 was warmer than 1990-2000, which was warmer than 1980-1990.
Monckton: And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century
Now this is really cherry-picking data, isn’t it? Besides my previous comment that a particular location is not the globe, you could have easily started with a high year and gone out to a low year (say, 1830-1890), showing that global temperatures decreased at a record rate.
Paul says:
it is precisely that spike that keeps regression lines flat for 17 years… Now this is really cherry-picking data, isn’t it?
Paul, a little history is in order: back in 1999, über-Warmist Phil Jones was interviewed. He was asked if global warming had stopped, since at that time there had been no warming for 2 years.
Jones replied that in order to answer that with statistical accuracy, global warming would have to remain stopped for at least fifteen years from 1997. No doubt Jones thought he was making a safe bet. But in the event, global warming did stop for the 15 years following Jones’ designated base year of 1997. And global warming still remains stopped. There has been no global warming since the Phil Jones’ selected base year of 1997.
Lately the alarmist crowd has been making the same point you did. They claim that 1997 was cherry-picked. Well, if it was, it was Phil Jones’ cherry-pick. The alarmist contingent would be whooping with joy if global warming had resumed.
They cannot have it both ways. The alarmist clique was silent during the 15 years following Jones’ starting year of 1997. It is only since the question has been answered with statistical significance that the alarmists began questioning 1997. But it was their baby all along. Now they have to live with it.
Paul says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Chris is not cherry picking, since the late 17th century was the depths of the Little Ice Age, from which period Earth has been recovering, ie getting warmer, although it is sure to get cold again, since the long term trend (at least 3000 years in length) is down & interglacials eventually end in a new glacial episode. Using 60-year PDO cycles, starting in 1690 or 1700 produces even more rapid warming, despite the remarkably cold years of 1709 & 1740.
Please bear in mind also that the Holocene has been a cool interglacial. The previous one, the Eemian (130 to 114 Ka), & the long MIS 11 or Holsteinian (~400 Ka) were a lot warmer, without benefit of a Neanderthal or H. heidelbergensis Industrial Age.
in Monckton’s conjecture, that “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.”, does rely upon Fourier’s hypothesis, using Wien’s Displacement Law. It is a bit tenuous, however Lord Monckton has used this explanation in the past, but as I will explain, this is an error of logic.
Fourier stated … “The mobility of the air, which is rapidly displaced in every direction [upward by evaporation and convection, sideways by advection, downward by precipitation and subsidence] and which rises when heated [convection], and the radiation of non-luminous heat [châleur obscure: i.e. infrared radiation] into the air, diminish the intensity of the [warming] effects which would take place in a transparent and static atmosphere [evaporation and convection cool the surface, for instance], but do not entirely change their character.
The decrease of the heat in the higher regions of the air [the upper atmosphere] does not cease, and the temperature can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light [i.e. visible radiation] finds less resistance in penetrating the air than in repassing into the air when converted [on striking the Earth’s surface, by Wien’s displacement law] into non-luminous heat [châleur obscure: i.e. infrared radiation].”
Monckton asserts then that, “Any honest reader of this passage will recognize that Fourier is indeed here positing the greenhouse effect.”
This is an error of logic. Greenhouses heat up by the space enclosed by the glass stopping heat escaping due to prevention of convection, and Fourier states that in the atmosphere, convection occurs and indeed that this then causes the surface to cool. So then it is not logical to assert that there is a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, at the same time as there is convection occurring. No greenhouse effect (even in a greenhouse) has anything whatsoever to do with concentrations of CO2 in any such enclosed space. CO2 cannot emit more energy than it absorbs, else we should all be running our “clunkers” upon it, free of charge, and using CO2 to heat our bathwater and our homes.
So the Fourier was not positing “the greenhouse effect” at all, at least not in the passage which Monckton quotes in his explanations. Monckton often asserts that antagonists overlook the wavelength dependence of the interactions between infrared radiation and greenhouse-gas molecules, but if we look at an absorption wavelength chart, for instance in the book, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate [Roger G. Barry, Richard J Chorley – fp.1968] we can see that the absorption bands for CO2 occur at wavelengths for which there is virtually no energy being emitted from The Earth itself, or indeed incoming from The Sun. How then do these interactions take place, whether there is indeed convection or even if there is not?
Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png
There is zero empirical evidence of any so called “greenhouse effect” as it has been called in these pages. Given that CO2 interactions occur at different wavelengths to that of both incoming and outgoing IR Radiation, it seems unlikely then that CO2 is any kind of candidate at all, for any significant variation in the overall heat content in the Earth’s atmosphere, especially when you consider its minute concentration. CO2 is a rare gas.
I don’t think you “close” a “giant vampire squid (etc)”; you have to kill it.
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Sigh. The Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age, was from 1645-1715, almost all of it before the period ingeniously but misleadingly selected by Mr Finn. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate in the entire instrumental record was between 1694 and 1733, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C/century, or more than twice the fastest such rate measured since 1950. And the fastest centennial rate ever recorded was from 1663-1762, at 0.9 C/century. Both of these record high rates of increase occurred before the Industrial Revolution began. And both of them are mentioned in the head posting.”
And since that area was not depopulated, due to everyone succumbing to heat, nor turned into a barren wasteland, it’s only logical to assume that in the period BEFORE the rapid rise, it must have been colder…or ‘bad things’ would have happened and made life there impossible.
These jokers seem to forget the fact that during these ‘unprecedented’ events, life went on. If we are to buy what they are selling, there shouldn’t have been anyone left alive in the area to maintain the temperature record.
Warmist Claptrap says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm
IMO CO2 can produce a negligible GHE in dry air. Since water vapor is about 100 times more common over much of the globe than CO2 molecules & because the absorption bands of the two GHGs overlap, any effect from increasing CO2 concentration from three to four molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules would be swamped out in the moist tropics. However at the dry poles, such an increase might have an effect (albeit scarcely measurable), but of course not during the long sunless winters.