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.
My view is that much of the variation in the global temperature anomaly from which we have somewhat reliable data, which is from 1850 until now has been driven by variations in the frequency and intensity of El Niños and that these variations in ENSO are mainly caused by natural drivers.
With an Artificial Neural Network that I created I’ve been able to establish that the drivers of ENSO variations are dominated by a combinations of tidal and solar electromagnetic forces and I have also been able to establish by which mechanism these forces affects ENSO.
I have just finished the creation of a Power Point Presentations which describes my findings in detail, that I can show to others.
Given in my view the importance of what I have found and the implication of this finding, both in forecasting ENSO and for its importance in the AGW debate, I would like to make my findings public in such a way as to make as much damage to the CAGW theory and subsequent policy as possible.
I would appreciate any ideas how to do this!
Arno! Please break your text blocks into paragraphs!
[If a writer is submitting from Facebook or similar limited screens and platforms, a “carriage return” (paragraph) is a “submit & send right now” signal.
However, your request is noted, but we cannot assume what editing is required. .mod]
dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:16 pm
See my response to Mr Werme at 2:55 pm
justaskin: So is there something special about the current pause?
Yes. Influential scientists predicted an increase in temp of about 0.2C/decade for this period. They furthermore warned that it was necessary for us to switch off of fossil fuels in a big hurry; indeed, some are still warning us of this necessity, despite the obvious failure of their prediction.
dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm
” global warming would have to remain stopped for at least fifteen years”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend
H Grouse says:
See my response to Mr Werme…
I did. Your point?
Lord M must be keen on recycling as he keeps going back to use the same article – with the same cherry picking of CET data.
The RSS is one data set that is being used to produce the longest pause.
Yet he himself posted a quite good article on this site a few days ago showing that based on 5 major data sets the pause started around 2001/2, not 1996.
Which is it ?
milodonharlani says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:36 pm
” IMO CO2 can produce a negligible GHE ”
But this is my point though. There may be a miniscule effect of some sort, but it cannot be logically called a Greenhouse Effect, for there is no “greenhouse”. There is however energy loss and transference due to convection, as Fourier said, and Monckton quoted previously, yet a greenhouse, a real greenhouse warms, because it largely prevents convection heat losses.
Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them,
Again look at the chart, and tell me what is the mechanism for CO2 absorbing energy, from a band where there is practically none, and then amplifying that energy and re-emitting it in another band where we cannot seem to measure that effect?
Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png
“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…..”
*facepalm
“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)?”
*Bigger facepalm – the oceans have 1,000,000x the heat capacity and so if this was true it would be a FANTASTIC thing – gerbil worming fixed for a billion years.
John Finn: 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.
The threat that Hansen, the IPCC and others have been warning us of is “global warming”, not “heat accumulation in the deep ocean”, for which there is no evidence implicating humans or CO2 in any way. The threatened “warming” is is not occurring . The fact of non-warming over a long time span of high CO2 concentration when warming was confidently predicted (it’s not too extreme to say “stridently predicted”) is serious evidence that the people doing the warning did not know what they thought that they knew.
dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm
“Your point?”
I guess I’ll have to repeat, even though it’s in the whole thread.
The sun facing surface of Mercury is colder than the surface of Venus
The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the surface of Earth
…
The response was, Venus is warmer due to pressure.
That argument is countered with, the pressure on Earth is higher than on the Moon.
Warmist Claptrap says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm
I certainly agree that “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer, but “upwelling photon capture & partial release downward” isn’t as handy, if more precise. Maybe “hooked blanket with holes in it” effect would be more accurate.
Rob says: “The PDO has all but destroyed El Niño.”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, not a driver. See:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/the-201415-el-nino-part-5-the-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-enso/
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, thank you again for your good article and patient responses to questions and critiques.
Bad news for Global Cooling Deniers.
And even more bad news, the EL Nino that supposed to be super won’t turn out at all.
Warmist Claptrap said
“Greenhouse effects are not reliant upon the gases or mixtures of gases contained within them”
So what’s your reference for that pearl ?
Bob Tisdale says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm
IMO, both oscillations are part of the same cyclical sloshing, ocean-atmosphere-lithosphere process, ultimately primarily driven by the solar activity, which has its own drivers.
“Warmist claptrap” is trying to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect by quibbling about its terminology. The effect is real: get over it, or go back to the “slayers'” website from which you have been quoting. The existence of the effect (whatever one calls it) has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment.
As for “Paul”, he seems to think that to ask the question “What was the fastest rate of warming over a 100-year period in the instrumental record?” is to cherry-pick. Nice try, but no. And that period, as the head posting and my previous comment made plain, was from 1663-1762, before the Industrial Revolution.. There has been no centennial warming rate as fast as that since.
“Paul” is also middled about the effect of ocean temperatures on atmospheric temperatures. I had made the point that if the oceans were really warming the atmosphere were warming too, but it is not. “Paul” then asked whether I denied that ENSO warming of the oceans can warm the atmosphere. Well, obviously not, since that fact merely reinforces my original point that if the oceans are warming they will warm the atmosphere: and the atmosphere is not, repeat not, warming – and certainly not warming at anything like the rate the failed computer models had predicted.
There have been some ingenious attempts at diverting attention away from the main point. Mr Abbott, for instance, asks a second question about why I update the RSS record every month, even though the question is answered in the head posting and again in this thread. All these attempts to derail the simple message have failed as much as the models themselves have failed. The game is up.
Thanks, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
You wrote:
In answer to Mr Valencia, one can go back 13 years 4 months and still find a zero trend on the NCDC data.
Yes, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/ shows -0.01°C/Decade from 2001 to 2014.
I shall include this in my pages.
Lord Monckton’s method of seeking the greatest expanse in time between today and some point in history where the trend is zero got me to wondering. Why zero? What happens if we look for non-zero trend lengths? Next question – is this really not cherry picking? I’m not claiming it is but I also don’t see how it is not.
The sun facing surface of the Moon is warmer than the [sun facing] surface of Earth
I’ll take this one fellas. Albedo. The moon absorbes 88% of it’s incident solar energy, converting it to surface heat. The Earth absorbs 63%.
dp says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm
IMO, his procedure is the opposite of cherry picking, ie letting the numbers speak for themselves to reveal their own start point, rather than choosing one to serve one’s own ends. Chris looks to see how far back in time there has been no statistically significant warming, to include actual cooling.
papiertigre says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm
” Albedo.”
..
That doesn’t explain why the surface of Venus is warmer than the sun facing surface of Mercury…
…
…
(PS……..fi this were Poker, you’d know my hole card is the distance difference between Mercury and Venus)
Its interesting that none of the trends shown have the observed even WITHIN the predicted ranges right from the start. One wonders how anyone supporting AGW could hold their heads up.
Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christopher, even though the alarmists state there has been an increase in extreme weather the data show otherwise, from tornadoes to hurricanes to drought and flooding. Globally there is not sig trend in any of these parameters. I know you’re just bolstering your argument which is fine and I agree with, but let’s not give them any undeserved, albeit, clandestine credibility.