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.
Are the oceans warming? This post by Willis Eschenbach who analysed ARGO data between 2005 and 2012 suggests they are
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/
Willis writes
You’ve either not followed the discussion or you’re having trouble understanding. I can’t be bothered explaining it all to you but my point is that the CET doesn’t provide any evidence for a LIA – at least not one that lasted through the 18th and 19th centuries since the CE temperature trends for both those centuries are flat.
Not true. Roy Spencer has shown clearly how ocean heating can occur without the atmosphere warming.
I have posted many times on WUWT but never on JoNova’s blog. I doubt if I’ve provided a definition for global warming (your other point). I’ve always assumed the “sceptic” side were insistent that OHC was a more important measure. Roger Pielke was constantly making this very point. No matter – it is the most important measure and according to ARGO the oceans are continuing to accumulate heat.
On a separate point you seem to imply that I am a “warmunist” – whatever that is supposed to mean. I think I can guess so let me, then, draw your attention to this WUWT post from November 2009.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Scroll down the page and you will find this paragraph
So, in December 2004 (5 years before climategate) I was challenging Michael Mann about the “hide the decline” trick. Richard, I try to attack the “warmunists” where they are weak. The warming may not be as great as predicted (or projected) but it is still happening. To keep arguing that it isn’t is inviting trouble further down the line. Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer but it shouldn’t be extreme or catastrophic and may even be beneficial.
H Grouse says at August 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Nope.
Just Google it.
“Temperature of the moon” gives try it
So an atmosphere makes a big difference to the stability of the temperature of a planet.
And a mini-planet like Mercury can not hold an atmosphere (not enough mass, thus not enough gravity).
So it can’t keep the energy that happens to irradiate the sphere.
So, on average it is colder.
The new divergence problem. If it cools then it is all over. Or they will claim global cooling is caused by global warming.
Warmist Claptrap says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm
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?
That spectrum is the IR as observed from space, the reason there is little energy emitted in the 15micron band is because it has been absorbed by CO2!
Chart of spectra (Barry & Chorley)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ir-spectra-earth.png
M Courtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm
“So an atmosphere makes a big difference to the stability”
Venus has an atmosphere, Mercury does not. Mercury is cooler
Earth has an atmosphere, the Moon does not…The Earth is cooler.
Earth has higher albedo than Moon…….Venus has higher albedo than Mercury
And I still haven’t played my hole card !!!!
The latest analysis of ocean heat content from the surface to the bottom, is a rise of only 0.2 W/m2/year. That’s nothing. It’s within the error margin, within what might be considered as simply a random variable.
The atmosphere/land/ice is only accumulating another 0.035 W/m2/year.
The original climate theory projections was that the total of these two numbers would be between 1.2 W/m2/year and 1.8 W/m2/year.
So, no temperature increase, no (or only 15% of the projected) energy accumulation and what do we have.
A falsified theory. No ifs and or buts. It’s done.
There is just too much egg-on-the-face for the pro-warmers to climb down now, but they have to at some point very very soon. And all you pro-warmers out there need to start preparing for that now.
My Gosh, H Grouse.
I’ve just seen further down the comments that you’ve not just got the numbers wrong – you’ve also oversimplified the physics.
Temperature is a result of more than one factor!
☺It’s not just pressure of the atmosphere.
☺It’s not just the proximity to the star (assuming the same star).
It is both -(and maybe the composition of the atmosphere – but we have no evidence of the “maybe”).
So Mercury and Venus do not prove anything about Earth. There are too many variables,
Yet only Earth matters to us locals.
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Albedos:
Mercury
0.142 geometric
0.068 Bond
Venus
0.67 geometric
0.90 Bond
Moon
0.113 geometric
0.123 Bond
Earth
0.367 geometric
0.306 Bond
Skeptical Science asserted some years back that co2 was then (and now?) the main driver of global warming. It looks like the driver was thrown out of the driver’s seat. Embarrassing shite.
If 17 years is short term then so is everything they claim of less that 17 years. A hurricane here, and a drought there.
H Grouse, Google temperatures of planets.
You have got a little confused between average temperatures and actual temperatures (which matter).
If the temperature varies between 123 Celsius and -233 Celsius then the average has a completely different significance than to variation between 23 Celsius and 13 Celsius.
The average is not the metric to use as it is affected by:
☻The energy input.
☻The energy output.
☺The duration in the atmosphere.
And the last is measured by – The range of temperatures.
M Courtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:18 pm
“So Mercury and Venus do not prove anything about Earth”
…
I’m not looking to prove anything about Earth, I’m just trying to understand why the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury.
Pressure doesn’t explain it (see Earth/Moon analogy)
Albedo doesn’t explain it (see milodonharlani numbers posted at 4:47 pm0
…
And I still have my hole card to play !!!!
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm…
You decided to select UAH. Fine. But as Lord Monckton noted, there are problems with that.
I prefer the best satellite record, which is RSS.
M Courtney says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:27 pm
“You have got a little confused between average temperatures ”
Mercury sun facing side 427 degrees C dark side -173 degrees C….average 127 degrees C
Venus surface temp is 462 degrees C everywhere.
…
Mmmmmmm….thanks for making this even more interesting .
dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm
“I prefer the best satellite record, which is RSS.”
Best?…..I contend that neither one is any better than the other
Before responding to any more posts below perhaps I should say that I am very familiar with the CET record and am aware there is a sharp rise in temperatures between ~1690 and ~1730 (so *sigh* all you like, Christopher Monckton). However, I also know that the precision and accuracy of late 17th century/early 18th century readings was not too great (temperatures were recorded to the nearest 0.5 degree). Also, as far as I was aware, the LIA did not only cover the maunder minimum period. The 18th and 19th century trends are virtually flat. There are fluctuations – probably due to ocean influences – but they are cyclical and pretty much sum to zero (look at a CET graph),
Right …
There was very little warming from the start of the 18th century up to ~1900. That’s 200 years. Check it out – graphically and/or by linear regression.
So are you saying the LIA ended in 1700 or 1730?
The average Earth surface temperature rises 10C from the morning sunrise to mid-afternoon high temperature around 3:30 pm or in 9.5 hours.
How much would that temperature rise if the average time to the peak temperature of the day was 4,617 hours like it is on Venus.
If you crunch the numbers on how solar joules are accumulating each hour, the Earth surface temperature would rise to 450C ( the same temperature as Venus) if the rotation rate gave us days which were 243 days long like they are on Venus. That is real physics where joules accumulate and drawdown over time as they do in the real universe.
Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm
The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.
That would be nice if the Earth did the same thing.
James Abbott says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Where did this “pearl” come from?
From Fact, Logic and Law.
it is as I stated above – – –
“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.
The second statement is a corollary of the first.
Yet this is not how the air in the free atmosphere of the Planet Earth behaves, because it is not a closed construction with walls and a roof. The simplistic greenhouse analogy is fatuous and in fact a logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and it is a causal oversimplification, and a Ludic fallacy into the bargain. In Law we should say, onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, that the burden of proof lies in the proponent of some hypothesis. Where is the evidence that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse does?
It is this widely held erroneous assumption which gives rise to the vain hope that humans might control the temperature of a Planet, by altering the amount some parameter. In a greenhouse, we we might increase the ventilation, and allow heat to escape by convection. We cannot do this in a Planet’s atmosphere, because it is already open all the way to outer space.
It is for you, the proponents of the Earth Atmosphere “CO2 greenhouse” conjecture, to provide repeatable empirical evidence to support this hypothesis, and with logically sound explanation. This is not really a question of complex atmospheric physics at all. Rather it is a series of fallacies of logic and faulty syllogisms, failures of inductive reasoning.
naturally, the temperature data doesn’t figure at all at NYT. they have other things on their mind :
3 Aug: NYT: Shattering Myths to Help the Climate
Economic View by Robert H. Frank
(A version of this article appears in print on August 3, 2014, on page BU6 of the New York edition)
Each new climate-change study seems more pessimistic than the last. This May and June, for example, were the hottest ones on record for the planet. Storms and droughts occur with increasing frequency. Glaciers are rapidly retreating, portending rising seas that could eventually displace hundreds of millions of people.
Effective countermeasures now could actually ward off many of these threats at relatively modest cost. Yet despite a robust scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are at the root of the problem, legislation to curb them has gone nowhere in Congress….
Myth 2: Slowing the pace of climate change would be prohibitively difficult
The most effective remedy would be a carbon tax, which would raise the after-tax price of goods in rough proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. Gasoline would become more expensive, piano lessons would not…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/upshot/shattering-myths-to-help-the-climate.html?_r=0
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm
The problem is that the temperature on Venus is 462 degrees in the morning when the sun “rises” (in the west) and it is 462 degrees at noon, 462 degrees at sunset, and 462 degrees at midnight.
——————
What would happen on Earth if the surface temperature on the day-side rose to 450C. The Oceans boil, the gases boil out of the land surface, a huge thick atmosphere results. The winds from the day-side to the night-side pick up substantially and the huge thick atmosphere provides the same temperature anywhere on the planet. Just like on Venus.
H Grouse says:
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…
1. Unlike Mercury, Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which smooths out the diurnal ∆T.
2. Earth has an extremely dense atmosphere compared with the Moon.
Therefore, neither comparison applies.
=====================
John Finn,
The Little Ice Age [LIA] was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene. That fact is reflected in ice cores and in contemporary accounts. Pretending the LIA didn’t happen is crazy.
The planet has been warming as it naturally emerges from the LIA. Any other explanation for the warming needs supporting evidence, in the form of verifiable, testable measurements showing that the fraction of a degree warming attributed to AGW is not due to some other cause. AGW is the alarmists’ conjecture, and they have to defend it. But so far, their entire defense has been in the form of assertions. We need more than that, if we are expected to spend $Trillions on a wild goose chase.
John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
No, I’m saying that within cold periods there are intervals of rapid warming, as for instance during the Dark Ages Cold Period, which saw the rapid Sui-Tang warming, before the Medieval Warm Period. It’s the same as secular & cyclical trends in the stock market. Often during secular down or up trends, there are powerful counter trends before the dominant trend returns.
The LIA lasted until around 1850, when temperatures regained the long term trend line, which is down. But its trough was the 1690s during the Maunder Minimum, followed by a rapid rebound, followed by a return to the secular cold trend, especially during the Dalton Minimum.
The point is that there is nothing in the least bit unusual about 20th century warming. Indeed, the rates of warming in the pre-CO2 cycle, c. 1927-46, was about the same as during the supposed CO2 cycle, c. 1977-96. A plateau to cool cycle, c. 1947-76, occurred in between these two natural warming cycles, just as is happening again now. There was also a cycle of rapid warming in the late 19th century, coming out of the LIA, followed by another such flat to cooling phase, all related to natural oceanic oscillations, primarily driven by the sun.
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm
First, thank you to all my “assistants.”
The Earth and Moon are so different I cringe whenever someone tries to compare them. There was that awful paper a few years that tried and got far more press and commentary than it should have. I may have repressed enough of my memory of it so I’ll have trouble finding it again.
The other comments have provided many of the reasons. I don’t think one of the important answers has come out – the Moon has a synodic day (the time from noon to noon) of 29.5 days. Imagine what Death Valley might become 14 Earth days of sunlight.
Next, note the massive role that convection plays in tempering the Earth’s temperature. A typical clear day here in New Hampshire starts out with a temperature inversion and a thin cold layer of air in the valleys. As the Sun heats the land, conduction heats the air and things warm up quickly. Soon the air column develops instability and convection mixes the surface air with thousands of feet of air above ground. Wind picks up, as the wind aloft can readily come down to the surface due to convection trying to produce neutral buoyancy. This much larger air mass greatly slows the temperature climb, but we typically hit the highest temperature of the day in the afternoon after the peak heating of our 24 hour day.
This is so utterly different than conditions on the Moon that there’s no reason to compare them. Our atmosphere has much more in common with places like Venus, Jupiter, and Titan than it does with our Moon’s infinitesimal atmosphere.
Apollo era joke wrt the Lunar Lander’s descent engine – “First they bring an atmosphere and then they pollute it!”
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Wow, what an opening. 🙂
Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm
“What would happen on Earth”
…
Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth. I’m in search of the explanation why Venus is so much warmer than Mercury.
The sun facing surface of Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you use the “average” temperature of Mercury, you only make the problem worse. If you talk about albedo, Venus is HIGHER than Mercury……and the pressure argument doesn’t hold
New Zealand Herald makes a bold claim in the headline:
3 Aug: New Zealand Herald: Tuvalu climate change family win NZ residency appeal
A Tuvalu family has been granted New Zealand residency after claiming it would be affected by climate change if it returned home.
It is the first successful application for residency on humanitarian grounds in which climate change has featured, but the Immigration and Protection Tribunal said the family had strong ties to New Zealand.
Environmental law expert Vernon Rive said the tribunal would be keen to avoid opening the floodgates to other climate change refugee claims…
Immigration lawyer Trevor Zohs, who represented the family with Carole Curtis, told the Herald on Sunday the effects of climate change should be recognised.
“A lot of people are affected by illness when they go back, they get sick from drinking polluted water. The island is porous so even when the water is not flooding, it penetrates the rocks under the land.”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303331
elsewhere, it’s a differenty story!
3 Aug NewsTalk: Tuvalu family’s residency not standard for climate refugees
The granting of residency to a Tuvalu family who claimed to be affected by climate change won’t pave the way for climate refugees.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal took the family’s strong ties to New Zealand into account, when accepting their residency application.
But the residency was granted on humanitarian grounds – not because of climate change or refugee status…
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/220236564-tuvalu-family-s-residency-not-standard-for-climate-refugees