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.
The trick with Mosher is not to reply to his postings. Im amazed none of you have coped on to this. LOL idem with Zeke ect… Their trick is to divert attention from fatal AGW postings ie like no temperature trends, INCREASING NH ice etc..
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm
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
———————-
Mercury lost its atmosphere because it is has so little gravity and it is too close to the Sun.
On the Earth surface, the atmospheric collision rate is 7 billion collisions per second right now at surface pressure.
If Earth had a retro-grade spin rate like Venus, the atmosphere would accumulate something like 92 extra bars of pressure and the collision rate would rise to 1.0 trillion collisions per second. ie, it would take forever (well 200 days or so) for solar energy to be emitted back to space after it reached the planet versus the current Earth situation where it is only 42 hours and on Mercury it is only about 1 minute.
John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
I might add that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by spectacular solar activity, ie the 1859 Carrington super flare & the eerie Northern Lights at the US “Civil War” battlefield of Fredericksburg in December 1862, which were seen far into the South. Telegraphy was effected.
This level of activity stands in stark contrast to the quiescent sun of the Spörer, Maunder & Dalton Minima of the Little Ice Age.
Werner Brozek says:
> August 2, 2014 at 8:28 am
>
> Does WFT use a different method for calculations? The reason I ask is
> that WFT gives a positive slope of “slope = 1.25851e-05 per year” for
> 214 months. However the slopes is negative
> “slope = -0.000162934 per year” for 213 months.
Me too. I downloaded the data and applied the spreadsheet slope() function. I get +0.0000124318 per year from October 1996. So the cooling/zero trend only goes back to November, i.e. 213 months. I infer that the problem is that Lord Monckton used a spreadsheet (or whatever program) that displays 4, or fewer, digits after the decimal point. In that case, one would see zero as the result at October 1996. I would call the string at 213 months.
Whether or not it’s cherry picking seems irrelevant, since there is no global temperature. It’s essentially an “angels on the head of a pin” argument.
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 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.
These data are unreliable as shown below and shouldn’t be used.
See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf
From the Introduction:
“Up to 1722 available instrumental records fail to overlap and Manley needed to use non-instrumental weather diaries and refer to the instrumental series for Utrecht compiled by Labtijn (1945) in order to make the monthly CET series complete. Between 1723 and the 1760s there were no gaps in the composite instrumental records, but the observations generally were taken in unheated rooms rather than with a truly outdoor exposure. Manley (1952) used a few outdoor temperatures, observations of snow or sleet, and likely temperatures given the wind direction, to establish relationships between the unheated room and outdoor temperatures: these relationships were used to adjust the monthly unheated room data. Daily temperatures in unheated rooms are, however, not reliably convertable to daily outdoor values because of the slow thermal response of the rooms. For this reason no daily series truly representative of CET can begin before about 1770.”
Phil. says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Still more reliable than the CACA practice of interpolating imaginary temperatures & keeping alive fictional zombie stations, which can “record” whatever the high priests want the entrails to say.
I was just looking at the sea surface temps and noted the warm pool has almost disappeared again in region 3-4 while region 4 remains cool. Looks like the heat has again gone missing and the threat of El Nino is again El NADA….
We are again looking at going negative on the ENSO scale.
I am not so sure about the presumption Monckton and others have made about having an El Nino.
dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm
” *1Unlike Mercury, Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which smooths out the diurnal ∆T.”
The smoothing out on Venus does not explain why Mercury is cooler than Venus. If you smooth out the difference between the sun facing side of Mercury with the dark side, the “average” temperature of Mercury drops 300 degrees C. The temperature on Venus is still HOTTER than when the sun is directly overhead on the surface of Mercury.
“2. Earth has an extremely dense atmosphere compared with the Moon.”
..
And Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Mercury. That just makes the analogy even better.
The Pause will be old enough to Vote soon
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 2, 2014 at 2:42 pm
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.
This is a point I have challenged warmists on several times, and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. If the CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping additional infrared energy, how does it miraculously get sucked into the ocean without first warming the atmosphere itself?
Ric Werme says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm
“The Earth and Moon are so different”
Yes they are.
However, you have not answered the question (or have simply not paid attention to the thread.)
I want to know why the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.
The differences between Venus and Mercury are very similar to the differences between the Earth and the Moon.
Bill Illis says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm
“Mercury lost its atmosphere”
…
That fact does not explain why the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.
Walter Dnes says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm
Me too. I downloaded the data and applied the spreadsheet slope() function. I get +0.0000124318 per year from October 1996.
I took another look at the graph and it clearly says 0.00/cent, which is of course 0.0000/year. And as it turns out, anything below 0.00005 becomes 0.0000. In my posts, I have decided that the slope must be negative for my start year, however to my knowledge, this has never been defined by anyone that it must be this way.
I now believe this is a judgement call and either 213 or 214 months can be easily defended in this case.
It’s the rotation speed of the planet that matters – determines how much sunlight hits an area
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
The response was, Venus is warmer due to pressure.
That argument is countered with, the pressure on Earth is higher than on the Moon.
[facepalm]
The relationship between pressure and temperature in the atmosphere is nice and linear — but only as long as the atmosphere is thick ENOUGH. Ever look at a chart of a “standard atmosphere”?
http://atmos.caf.dlr.de/projects/scops/sciamachy_book/sciamachy_book_figures/chapter_1/fig_1_2.jpg
or do your own search on the phrase, “standard atmosphere”. You’ll get much the same picture, though.
Notice the lovely linearity down near the surface. Notice that when the air gets seriously thin — like Mars, say, or the exosphere of the Moon — the relationship is all over the place. You need to ignore this in order to make your argument.
Nor is mellyrn nearly as muddled about Venus as Sv. Monckton and H Grouse appear to be as to why it’s so cold at the top of Mt Everest compared to how hot it is at the bottom of Death Valley, even though Mt Everest is almost 9 degrees — almost 10% — closer to the equator than Death Valley is. It’s supposed to get warmer as you move from the poles towards the equator, right? So, why’s Mt Everest colder, so much colder?
It’s the atmospheric pressure — Death Valley’s air pressure is TRIPLE that of the peak of Mt Everest, and therefore is much warmer despite being so much farther north. And, Sv. Monckton, the temperature of Venus at 49 km altitude — the point at which the atmospheric pressure drops to EQUAL that of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level (and obtw, did either of you notice that Venus has no “sea” level?) — is a mere 337K (not 737K) which is EXACTLY what you get when you do the inverse-square math for the incoming energy and then the fourth-root S-B math for the associated temperature and compare pressure apples to pressure apples. No accounting for chemistry of the atmosphere at all, no GHG effect seen despite all that CO2.
Albedo, you say? Then it’s a magical albedo, that just perfectly offsets your alleged GHG effect. Interesting point: since Venus is covered in clouds and not by a solid roof, the albedo effect must be inversely related to altitude. Surely you’ve flown enough to notice that as the plane approaches the tops of the clouds, it gets lighter? This is because light (energy) is penetrating the thinner, upper layers. But if you do the same inverse-square/S-B math to compare Earth at, say, 0.5atm, 0.4atm, or 0.2atm with equivalent altitudes on Venus, the higher altitudes, where there should be LESS albedo offset and therefore more CO2-dominated warming, it’s actually slightly COOLER up there than the simple math calls for. So, sir, somehow your albedo, while perfect at 49 km to offset the GHG effect, is even MORE effective up where there is actually LESS of it. Odd.
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.
The temperature at the surface of the Earth is 1.5degC in the morning, 1.5degC at noon, 1.5degC at sunset, and 1.5degC at midnight, and 1.5degC at the north pole, winter or summer.
The surface of the Earth is, of course, the lithosphere, known to us airbreathing chauvinists as “the bottom of the ocean”.
Again, an effect of high pressure. Though, since the one is a liquid and the other a gas, their actual temperatures do not directly compare; instead, we are here comparing the STABILITY of the temperatures.
(And now I’m afraid I’ve confused H Grouse by, in one case, comparing atmosphere to atmosphere, in the matter of actual temperature; and in the other comparing atmosphere to hydrosphere, in the matter of -stability- of temperature. If anyone else sees a problem with how I’ve written, do let me know.)
H. Grouse says:
The differences between Venus and Mercury are very similar to the differences between the Earth and the Moon.
No, they’re not. I’ll let you figure out why [hint: the moon orbits the earth].
And:
…Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Mercury.
That’s exactly what I posted above. I hope we’re not dealing with crazy “chuck” by another name. The irrational arguments sound the same.
milodonharlani says, So while, yes a bare majority of incoming solar radiation is IR, the IR portion of outgoing reflected energy is higher.
Ookay? But I wasn’t thinking that “how much relevant IR comes in from the Sun” and “how much relevant IR is outgoing from the Earth” made any difference, so long as any IR in the relevant wavelengths does come from the Sun.
Putting it simplistically (because I am simple, not because I think you are): imagine that 400 CO2 molecules in every million atmospheric molecules literally intercept 400 of every million IR photons (in the relevant wavelengths, but I’m going to stop adding that phrase). Half of them get “trapped” here, because the excited CO2 molecules calm back down isotropically, while the other half continue on towards space — if they came from planetside; otherwise, half get “blocked” from ever reaching the planet, for a net gain of zero.
The 400 CO2 molecules do not care if the IR photons are outbound, inbound, or going sideways (off a wall, or a neighboring molecule?) “Isotropic” means that half — actually slightly less, since the CO2 is ABOVE the surface, so a reradiated photon could head slightly “downward” but still miss the Earth — head for the planet, and slightly more than half head for space. The higher the CO2 molecule is, the more likely its reradiated photon is to reach space, rather than Earth.
If there were no IR of the relevant wavelength coming in from the Sun, then there would be none to “reflect” away — it would then be just slightly-less-than-half of the outbound IR being trapped here, and then you just might have a warming.
The only way I can see CO2 contributing at all to warming is at night, for this reason: there is no incoming IR on the night side for CO2 to “block” from getting planetside, but there is outgoing IR for it to “trap”.
And yet, Venus. Venus clearly begs to differ.
Re: Bill Illis says:August 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm
“If Earth had a retro-grade spin rate like Venus, the atmosphere would accumulate something like 92 extra bar ..”
Opening myself to the risk of sounding like a fanboy, Bill, this was a fantastic comment. Very clear. Very teacher-like. I’ve read through this thread and followed its three primary debates, learning as I read. Most of the comments are great, but yours resonated and capped the Mercury-Venus-moon-Earth debate well.
Damn.
I was hoping that we’d be at 18 years of no warming at the end of August so that we could throw a “Denier Bier” party in Sydney to celebrate the coming of age…..
If we’ve had to drop the first month of the series, I’ve booked the party too early.
Oh well, we’ll find another reason to drink anyway. Details here, if you happen to be in Sydney at the time.
http://thenewaustralian.org/?cat=44
John Finn – “The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade.”
Let me guess…
Joules rate was derived from Proxy data based on coral ring data from a few dozen Staghorn corals, while tossing out hundreds of samples from neighboring Elkhorn corals, with calibration done by a few years of on-shore solar cell output.
/sarc
John Finn: ‘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).”
Surprise! It ain’t got no better…
70.6% of surveyed USHCN stations (1007 surveyed out of 1221) had an estimated error greater than 2 deg C based on NOAA’s guidelines.
http://www.surfacestations.org
H Grouse seems very confused about the temperature of Venus and what causes it and why it is hotter than Mercury. We’ve known the gas laws for a couple of hudred years. We also have known why Venus is so hot since the late 1960’s/1970’s and was actually measured by the Russian landers/probes and an American orbiter.
Off topic I guess but through the eye of faith is the slope of the arctic beginning to flatten out already?
Must be cold weather up there right now.
.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Phil
you say;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1700221
I met up with David Parker at the Met office at the end of last year.
His work was concerned with creating a daily temperature which only becomes possible to reconstruct from that later date.
Whereas Manleys work was in ascertaining a monthly one from 1659.
As It brings in all sorts of records from instruments to observations to scientific studies it is actually seen as a pretty good and accurate analysis of what went on during the period.
As with ALL historic reconstructions we should take the accuracy to tenths of a degree with a pinch of salt .
As you know Phil Jones looked at the period ending 1740 and concluded that the 1730’s were the warmest decade in the record until the 1990’s. The temperatures in the following decade have since fallen back again . I have previously cited this paper to you and also commented that it caused Phil Jones to believe that natural variations were greater than he had previously thought.
tonyb