On climate, the Right is right – Global temperature update: the Pause is still 18 years 1 month

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

One of the most interesting statistics from the recent mid-terms was the New York Times’ exit poll (Fig. 1), showing that more than two-thirds of “Democrat” voters thought climate change was a serious problem. Five-sixths of Republicans didn’t.

clip_image002

Figure 1. The New York Times’ exit poll showing the partisan divide on climate.

Put this interesting statistic with another interesting statistic: the growth in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. In 1988, the year in which IPeCaC was founded and James Hansen first bleated about the imagined threat of “global warming” before Congress after Senator Tim Wirth had had the air-conditioning turned off in the hearing room, the world emitted 22 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

In 2013, just 25 years later, 35 million tonnes of CO2 were emitted. For all the chatter about the need to cut CO2 emissions, for all the taxes and fines and subsidies and profiteering, for all the pompous posturing at international grandstanding sessions and global gabfests, there is nothing to show but a 50% increase in the world’s annual emissions of CO2.

If the world really thought global warming was a serious problem, it is not likely that so large an increase in the emission of the supposedly dangerous (but actually innocuous and beneficial) trace gas CO2 would have been allowed to occur.

So, should anyone have been worried? On the data, the answer is No. Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 2). This month’s RSS temperature plot comes within a whisker of pushing up the period without any global warming from 18 years 1 month to 18 years 2 months: however, on a strict interpretation the period without warming remains at 18 years 1 month. Within a month or two, the current weakish el Nino may begin to influence global temperatures, shortening the Great Pause. However, if the el Nino is followed by a la Nina the Pause could lengthen again by late next year – perhaps even in time for the Paris climate summit of December 2015, at which the next major attempt to introduce a global “government” on the back of the climate scare will be made.

clip_image004

Figure 2. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 1 month since October 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 1 month, or 217 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

clip_image006

Figure 3. 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 October 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

A quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming 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 a little below half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 3).

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 50 more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals and among proselytizing scientists, 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. 4).

clip_image008

Figure 4. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to October 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 zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

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. 4 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, though. The temperature spikes of the 1998, 2007, and 2010 el Niños are evident in Figs. 1-4.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña that is one of the excuses for the Pause.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015 . Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 217 months from October 1996 to October 2014. That is more than half the 429-month satellite record.

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 measured 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 below 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 From September 2001 to September 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 1 month.

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 least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

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 provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking 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.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:

clip_image010

Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.

Replacing all the monthly RSS anomalies for 1998 with the mean anomaly value of 0.55 K that obtained during the 2010 el Niño and recalculating the trend from September 1996 [not Dr Mears’ “1997”] to September 2014 showed that the trend values “–0.00 C° (–0.00 C°/century)” in the unaltered data (Fig. 1) became “+0.00 C° (+0.00 C°/century)” in the recalculated graph. No cherry-picking, then.

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.

IPCC’s 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. For the rate of global warming since 1990 is about half what the IPCC had then predicted.

Advertisements

371 thoughts on “On climate, the Right is right – Global temperature update: the Pause is still 18 years 1 month

      • …believing the party line without thinking or doing any research to the contrary.

        The Left’s War on Climate is similar to their War on Women–it’s a meme in demise.

        Besides, it was never about the science anyway–“climate science” is a canard designed as a sister program to Agenda 21. The controllers at the UN kept them separate to make climate science appear valid, but it’s nothing of the sort.

      • … allowing oneself to be duped. Duped – A suspension of critical thought and failure to perform a continual reanalysis of new data once an initial threshold of cognitive affirmation is achieved. Continued dismissal of contrary evidence that initial conclusions were quite likely incorrect. Typically driven by emotional connection to a group, when the strong pressure to maintain social status, cohesiveness, and identity, results in conformity through group pressure.

      • Republicans 83% yes, Democrats 71% yes; a large margin in political issues.

        Republicans 27% no, Democrats 15% no; almost a 2:1 ratio.

        What gives ? 100% of Republicans had an opinion; 14% of Democrats evidently wondered what the question was. They have been referred to as “low information” voters.

        Notice it WAS an exit poll, so they presumably did vote. The blind leading the blind, with apologies to the sight impaired.

      • George E Smith,
        I think you must have studied the poll results without your glasses. Take another look, a careful one.

      • Dr Mears writes: “The denialists like to assume…”

        What is a ‘denialist’? What are people supposed to be denying?

        If they were telling the truth, would they be ‘truthalists’?

        These people sound crazier than liquored-up Islamists. Or is that ‘Islamalists’?

    • There is a pendulum swing happening, that’s for sure, but it is naive to think that Republicans know better than democrats. The whole affair is just political posturing. Whether politicians or civilians, most people are brutally ignorant of even the most elemental notions regarding climate… or any other science, for that matter.

      • Yeah, Brute, but we all see the trend to have a world government. IPCC (and the UN, for that matter) is just a first step. I do not understand the fascination with government of those on the left. We have seen brutal dictatorships on t he left and on the right. Our founding fathers had it right…”a government of defined but LIMITED powers.” But we have let it slip away through malfeasance of the Supreme Court.
        It is reported that someone asked Tom Jefferson (or was it some other dignitary?) as they were coming out of the session that formed the United States, “What have you given us?” He answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” We are close to losing it to the demand for overall popular vote and abolition of the Electoral Collage.
        Sleep well.

        PS. I presume you accent the “e” on the end. It fits.

      • Jim Brock said, It is reported that someone asked Tom Jefferson (or was it some other dignitary?) as they were coming out of the session that formed the United States, “What have you given us?” He answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

        Just for the record, that was Benjamin Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson.

      • Jim,

        “We have seen brutal dictatorships on t he left and on the right.”

        I can think of the major ones on the Left, but remind me again of the ones on the Right.

      • Technically that may be true. On the other hand, on issue after issue, Democrats routinely hold to facts that just aren’t so and remain impervious to data that doesn’t fit their world view.
        Despite a multitude of studies that show that programs like Head Start produce no long term benefit, try to talk to a Democrat about eliminating it.
        Despite the non-existent improvements from stimulus programs, the Democrats keep telling us that if only they were bigger, then they would work.
        I could go on, but I don’t want to get banned for being overly political.
        In my defense Anthony, the author did start it.

      • Before anyone tries to point to Fascism as being right wing, fascism is a form of socialism, so the left has to take ownership of that one.

      • Brute, you don’t have to be a climate scientist to smell this out. All the signs of a scam are present for anyone with reasonable intelligence.

    • To be fair we all tend initially to believe or disbelieve a proposition depending on whether or not it fits with our existing view of the world without necessarily thinking much about it. The more the controversy divides along tribal/political lines the more our initial, casual, impression becomes entrenched. The views of people we respect confirm our view and when the opposite view is held by people we despise it makes matters worse. This is always going to be especially true in areas in which we have no expertise or in areas where the evidence is difficult to assess.
      If we have to use crude sledgehammers labelled “Left” and “Right” – on this occasion the view which happened to accord best with a “Right” view of the world was the factually correct one but that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of those on the “Right” who doubt CAGW are any smarter than the majority on the “Left” who don’t – they were just luckier this time.
      Our congratulations ought to be particularly reserved for those brave people who took the trouble to look at the facts and came to a conclusion, often at a personal cost, which put them at odds with their own tribe, just because it was the right thing to do. Our contempt ought to be reserved for those who loudly proclaimed CAGW and denigrated disbelievers without bothering to honestly and dispassionately investigate for themselves.
      Sadly there are far more contemptible than honorable awards to be handed out.

      • Mark W – thanks.
        I seem to remember a golfer – possibly Arnold Palmer or Gary Player, but not sure – saying –
        “The harder I practise, the luckier I get” – I think with his tongue firmly inserted into his cheek!

        Smiles.
        Auto.

      • Actually, some peole believe a thing only if it is believable. If it is framed in such a way that it cannot be confirmed or denied by observation, then it isn’t “believable”, Q.E.D.

      • artwest November 8, 2014 at 6:22 am
        To be fair we all tend initially to believe or disbelieve a proposition depending on whether or not it fits with our existing view of the world without necessarily thinking much about it. The more the controversy divides along tribal/political lines the more our initial, casual, impression becomes entrenched. The views of people we respect confirm our view and when the opposite view is held by people we despise it makes matters worse…
        ++++++++
        You describe basic human nature… and for warmists and most people, it proceeds no further than that… people argue based on opinions inserted into their minds. Skeptics, on the other hand seek to find out what is true, NOT what is convenient or popular.

        You’ll hear it all the time from warmists, “97% agee” “Consensus” “the debate is over”.. or the name calling like “flat earther” “deniar” etc. Interestingly, none of these warmists rants have anything to do with science or truth.

      • @Gordon Ford November 13, 2014 at 6:26 pm
        Mario

        You can be skeptical all you want. It doesn’t advance the science at all. . When you start doing some actual science instead of just bellyaching, then we might see some progress. You can question the AGW hypothesis all you want, but that doesn’t do any good . When the “skeptics” can offer a better hypothesis than AGW for the recent warming, then there might be some progress. Until then, you can protest all you want, but it doesn’t help.
        +++++++++
        You make no sense Gordon. But thank you for giving me permission to be skeptical. The converse of your statement implies that you believe what politicians and newspapers tell you to believe –and then you call it science.

        Actually, you don’t know me – All I do is science. I am a process control engineer- and have been involved in MANY world class machine control process automation equipment. The things we designed and built led the world. In real science, when you get something wrong, you don’t get paid. We made a fortune.

        And as you say, …when ‘skeptics’ can offer a better hypothesis…
        I will one up you. Your ilk’s hypothesis died 18 years ago, and you’re still in denial about it. Earth itself proved all it needed to. But, you wouldn’t know that, because you “believe” what you want… and skeptics seek truth. Even “the scientists” admit the models cannot get it right – because they assume what you believe to be true.

        I recall the first thing I read about you where you (in so many words) called dbstealey dumb. And so far – everything you’ve written suggests you need to look in the mirror to see a horrifying milk toast face that needs to apologize.

        Go fly one of your model airplanes in Beckley… Bud

      • @Gordon Ford November 13, 2014 at 7:12 pm
        Mario
        ..
        @Gordon Ford writes:
        You are confused. Someone that accepts the AGW hypothesis can be “skeptical.”

        Earlier @Gordon Ford wrote to me: “You can be skeptical all you want. It doesn’t advance the science at all.”

        And now @Gordon Ford writes: “our ilk’s hypothesis died 18 years ago.” That is not true.”

        And I respond, you are still in denial. YOU wish it didn’t die 18 years ago, so now you argue that it DIED more recently. You will deny deny deny. That is what a believer does when faced with fact.

        @Gordon Ford wrote: ” A ” process control engineer” does engineering, which is applied science. You don’t “do science” you merely apply it. ”

        And I respond: “No, you don’t know me, and you don’t know what I did or how we developed what we did. But you already described in other words that you don’t understand science.

        @Gordon Ford writes: “PS, I never called anyone “dumb” If you think I did, please post a link to where I did so ”

        And I respond YOU did so… You called dbstealey dumb. You can deny it or you can go seek truth. YOU go find the post I am not going to run around to prove anything to you. You probably forgot which sock puppet you were when you wrote it.
        +++++++++

      • Gordon: Just to prove to everyone that you lie, and waste time. You know you remember calling dbstealey dumb, yet you lie.

        Here you go Bud.

        Gordon Ford November 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm
        You are requesting a measurement that cannot be made. So why do you continue to ask for ti? It’s really dumb to ask for something that doesn’t exist. Makes you look ……kinda dumb

      • “Gordon Ford” [the same sockpuppet as ‘juan’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘H Grouse’, etc., etc. — I think] says:

        Using UAH you can’t say “18 years” and there are other datasets that tell a different story.

        That’s why I say global warming has been stopped for ‘many years’. That’s the point, not the number of years: global warming stopped a long time ago.

        Next:

        There are many people that reject the AGW hypothesis that are in fact clueless as to the science behind it.

        Everyone who believes in catastrophic AGW is clueless. Furthermore, there is no measurable, testable evidence that AGW exists. None at all. Still waiting for that measurement, see? And speaking of ‘parroting talking points’, if it were not for the totally discredited SkepticalScience blog, juanbud wouldn’t have anything to grouse about.

        Finally, anyone who denigrates PCEs does not know the first thing about science. They are just demonstrating their profound ignorance, because there is no more rigorous field in any science discipline. NASA would have crashed and burned without PCE’s. That’s a fact; just ask any astronaut.

      • beckleyford says:

        Adding the word “catastrophic” is inappropriate.

        Wrong, as usual.

        I personally think AGW exists. But that is based on papers authored by people like Prof Richard Lindzen, and Anthony Watts, and Willis Eschenbach, and many other esteemed scientists. I accept their arguments, even though they are based on a rationale and not on a physical measurement of AGW. Because there aren’t any measurements of AGW.

        Since no one has ever produced a testable, empirical measurement quantifying AGW, then it must be entirely too minuscule to bother with. Therefore it is a complete non-issue; a scientific curiosity, but nothing that will impact humans or the biosphere. CAGW is still chattered about by clueless lemmings, because at one point in their ignorant existence they took a position, and now their fragile, misplaced egos will not allow them to admit that they were flat wrong all along — as Planet Earth is demonstrating.

        The only way the alarmist crowd can try to get any traction with the public is to use scare tactics, making their Chicken Little arguments about all the catastrophes they predict will be caused by “carbon”, including the disappearance of Arctic ice, accelerating sea level rise, increasing extreme weather events, extinct Polar bears, ocean “acidification”, two headed toads, and any other fake climate catastrophes they can think of. They wouldn’t understand the Null Hypothesis if it bit them on the ankle.

        If we eliminate all public discourse regarding ‘catastrophic’ predictions due to the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, then the grant gravy train will be derailed, and all the pseudoscientific rent-seekers will have egg on their faces for promoting a false alarm. That is the reason that we constantly read about all the ‘catastrophes’ that will supposedly be caused by CAGW — because plain old AGW is too small to even measure, and thus it is not a problem at all.

        So yes, “catatstrophic” AGW is absolutely necessary to support the alarmist narrative. Without it, you’ve got nothin’. So the alarmist cult uses what it has: CAGW.

        Your next potshot:

        You apparently don’t know the difference between an engineer and a scientist.

        I am both [or I was, before I retired]. So yes, I do know the difference. And what is your CV? You are neither a scientist nor an engineer, just a lonely guy who places ads for Russian girlfriends and posts here as multiple sockpuppets. Isn’t that a fact?

        Finally: you apparently don’t understand ethical behavior either, because you still haven’t apologized to Terry Oldberg for sockpuppeting his name. That was flagrantly dishonest — and stupid. Why don’t you stop butting into a discussion pretending to be someone you’re not? It seems that to be a climate alarmist requires a complete lack of ethics and honesty — and being stupid helps. That’s another difference between scientific skeptics, and alarmist jamokes.

      • dbstealey

        Who is Terry Oldberg? What are you talking about?… [snip]

        (REPLY: joy147 and Gordon Ford are screen names which come from the same computer. It is also the same computer user who posts as Edward Richardson, beckleybud, juan, Pyromancer76, chuckie, H Grouse, CJ, Alex, S. Tracton, chuck, Bud Durant, and other screen names. Sockpuppery violates site Policy, as the author of those names has been told. Worse, he has used the name of another respected commentator, Terry Oldberg, as his own in order to attack others. Therefore, recent comments by ‘Gordon Ford’ and ‘joy147’ have been saved, then deleted. The person posing as all those sockpuppets is advised to post elsewhere, because he is not welcome here. WUWT does not tolerate fraud, dishonesty, or the use of numerous different screen names. ~mod.)

      • DBSTEALING….. [Snip]
        [REPLY: This is another screen name of Gordon Ford, beckleybud, H Grouse, juan, etc. This commenter is persona non grata here. Also uses an invalid email address. ~mod.]

      • @joy147 November 14, 2014 at 1:29 pm
        DBSTEALING…..
        /
        /
        “Anthony Watts, and Willis Eschenbach, and many other esteemed scientists.”
        /
        /
        A TV weatherman is not an esteemed scientist.
        A construction manager/sport fishing guide/IT Senior Manager is not an esteemed scientist.
        +++++++++++
        Even Wikipedia writes: “Observers and critics have noted the blog’s influence and role in the debate over global warming science on the Internet…”

        Question for you, who runs the number one science blog in the world?

      • MARIO…[Snip]

        * * *
        [REPLY: This is another screen name of Gordon Ford, beckleybud, H Grouse, juan, etc. This commenter is persona non grata here. ~mod.]

      • [REPLY: This is another screen name of Gordon Ford, beckleybud, H Grouse, juan, etc. This commenter is persona non grata here. ~mod.]

      • Beckley Boy. Actually I am published.. in several journals. Again -everything you say, or think you know about me is WRONG. You argue like a child, a stubborn one. All of your multiple personalities are simple minded waste of time.

      • joy147

        Don’t bother with Mario, he thinks an engineer is a scientist

        (REPLY: joy147 and Gordon Ford are screen names originating from the same computer. It is also the same computer user who posts as Edward Richardson, beckleybud, juan, Pyromancer76, chuckie, H Grouse, CJ, Alex, S. Tracton, chuck, Bud Durant, and other screen names. Sockpuppery violates site Policy, as the author of those names has been told. Worse, he has used the name of another respected commentator as his own, to attack others. Therefore, recent comments by ‘Gordon Ford’ and ‘joy147’ have been saved, then deleted. The person posing as all those sockpuppets is advised to post elsewhere, because he is not welcome here. WUWT does not tolerate fraud, dishonesty, or the use of numerous different screen names. ~mod.)

        [Another mod: email addresses from joy147 and Gordon Ford are both invalid.]

      • Mario Lento says:

        Now that you’ve risen to your level of incompetency, I am done with you.

        I second that. Looks like the mods discovered what I suspected: Gordon and Joy are just two of many fake names this pathetic sockpuppet uses.

        He really needs to get a life.

    • Anything but brainwashed. Those who believe government should control economic activity and who are net economic beneficiaries of government, are likely to believe that climate is something that government can control to their further economic benefit.

    • This poll actually says that the issue has politicized to the point where it is no longer a scientific issue.
      With the massive advertising campaign surrounding (non)issue, it is a wonder that 27% of Democrats disagree with the hype.
      For me the political disagreement stems from the academic purge that has taken place over the last couple decades.

      • Seems the consensus was decided before all the data was gathered. Where do I recall finding that out, again?

      • Or Libertarians?
        According to the MSM and Ds and Rs there are only two parties in America.
        Try to get a L or an I in the presidential debates.
        You can ask Gary Johnson how that works.

  1. Millions or Billions? I think you might have to check those numbers at the start. China is burning about 10M tons of coal a day.
    Not that it is a problem but need to get the numbers right before the alarmist hordes roll in.

    • You are right.
      However ALL kinds of polution in air from factories, humans and nature (mostly vulcanoe eruptions) makes the air non-clean to breath,
      and it will eventually fall down.

      We don’t have a CO2 problem or a Global Warming problem but a much bigger problem, Clean Air and Clean pure water aren’t in sight for many persons,
      then the effects of polutions on flora and fauna far away as well as close by not taken into consideration.

      In my mind Clean Air to breath and Clean Pure Water ought to become Human Rights!
      That will cost a lot…. not to mention that when it was last really up on the agenda back in 1970/71 the need for studies ot effects in micro and macro environments was said to be enourmously high….

      • Just imagine if all the humungous amount of wasted money on renewable non-energy had been spent actually reducing REAL pollution, and providing REAL energy and water.

        The world be a far, far better place. !!

        AND there would be even more CO2 enhanced biosphere growth. !

      • What you want is the genuine real target, Clean Air.

        What you don’t know because the CAGW Alarmists won’t tell you, for fear of funding loss, is that for the most highly technological civilized continent, North America, it has almost completely been achieved after 45 years of hard and expensive effort.

        All but a handful of the 2500 counties in America have achieved Air Quality Compliance with the targets set by the tough extremists at EPA.

        We are already implementing even tighter emission regulations, to achieve cleanliness for that handful of remaining locations, without them really being needed. Older emission limits would probably suffice given more time to work.

        It is past time to declare Victory. Clean Air and Clean Water has been achieved here. Proving it can be done elsewhere.

        At the same time we have achieved below Zero CO2 emissions, using that emission to fertilize our agriculture and silviculture; and feed the World.

        It is up to the rest of he World to follow suit, as we have developed the technology to do so, and also shown how to use it.

      • The clean air and pure water at any cost trope is the next tactic of the watermelons. Tighter and tighter regulations to ban normal activities in the name of the environment. Look to California banning fireplaces, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, gasoline, heating oil. Any activity can be vilified, put on public trial and banned by these loonies. I will not fall for the next rebranding of the agenda.

      • Banning fireplaces and such for normal activity in a home isn’t the answer. There are filters, not only electrofilters, that’s been tested for over 40 years and proven to be a good solution on that problem.

        Using different types of filters in industrial cases is always the first solution. But for almost 40 years some industry here in Sweden used closed systems where for production needed products are to be recycled in plants and such with very good results. Holmen in Norrkoping was one of the first, might have been the first using that second step first to reduce polution of water at same time they started to use step one for air almost 40 years ago.

        Step three is to find another type of chemical solution to be used in production, at same time combining step 2 with reducing the energy needed from rawmaterial to product to be sold.

        It’s three steps in a needed process resulting in less total costs for production than before step 1 as well as resulting in almost clean air. Completely clean is hard to reach for every industrial production there is, but it’s close to that.

      • In the west, we already have clean air and water. The problems exist in poorer and communist countries where they either don’t have the money or the will, to install the pollution control devices that we routinely use in the more developed countries.

      • stas: There is no evidence that the newer, tougher standards will provide any health benefits compared to the older standards.
        It’s just that to some extremists, there is no such thing as clean enough, especially when someone else has to foot the bill.

      • In my mind Clean Air to breath and Clean Pure Water ought to become Human Rights!
        ============================
        be careful what you wish for. air contains many, many things besides air. sooner or later clean air will come to mean air free of pollen for example. truly clean air would mean the extinction of most life on the planet.

      • I guess I know more than most about what air contains. My father was one of the four first working full time in the Blue Field as a specialist, had been working with the water part full time earlier before the second World War. In my youth I (now 65) was helping him as an assistent in some of the water- and air collecting of samples, chemical and biological.

        I know why and what I wish for. And that it was up on the real specialists agenda in large symposiums back in early 70’s.

      • many people believe for example that all mercury should be eliminated from the environment. however recent studies have shown that small amounts of mercury are vital to brain development. which is likely why large amounts of mercury are harmful. the brain is sensitive to mercury. both too much and too little.

      • You are wrong in your belief that it shouldn’t be eliminated from the environment. Studies you put forward isn’t up to normal Science level. The so called need is on the contrary a hard prood why it should be eliminated. It causes more damage than you probably are aware of. AND that’s been proven beyond reasonable doubts – that so called scholars of today haven’t done their homework reading large amount of analysis and proofs presented long ago and still valid,
        well that’s their own problem. Not mine.

      • That’s easy.
        You build a dam and collect water.
        Include electrical generating equipment to provide cheap electricity.
        Then all you do is regulate the water flow as needed.
        Easy.
        Just ask China.

    • But not by the people for whom it really mattered, such as Christopher Columbus. Recall that he planned to sail WEST to reach China?

      • Columbus was a dumba$$. Everyone knew the earth was a globe. The flat earth meme was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of CC in 1830.

        The people had a pretty good estimate of the earth’s size in the 15th century, but Columbus believed the earth was 1/3 smaller. Big mistake. Had Columbus not run into islands off North America, he would have died, and justifiably so.

      • the size of the earth was calculated to very good accuracy more than 2000 years ago, based on the difference in the angle of sunlight at the bottom of wells in different locations.

  2. Rocky Road, I think you have it the wrong way around.

    It is obvious that Republicans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed.

    Democrats? Not so much.

    • I take it then that you believe that climate change is a problem and that we are all in denial?
      So please explain what in Lord Moncktons essay is incorrect….

      • The analysis of satellite data Mr Monkton present are correct; however, he selects a single atmospheric data set, which measures the accumulation of heat in but a tiny part of the climate system. The atmosphere has ~2% of the heat capacity of the oceans. He concludes from his analysis that there has been no global warming; yet, global ocean heat content, which measures the accumulation of heat in a far more significant part of the earths climate system, has continued to rise. Mr Monkton is presenting you here only a tiny part of a much larger picture. It is analogous of trying to conclude someones identity from seeing only their feet.

      • Bevan: Why isn’t that heat making its way into the atmosphere? Also, they calculate the joules from the temperature measurements, why do they convert the measured temperatures into joules and not instead leave it in centigrade, Celsius, Kelvin or farenwhatever ?

      • Bevan, high heat capacity of seas you refer to means we will not experience sudden catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

        It just means possible warming will be slow and not measurable.

      • Bevan, you’ve fallen for the latest misdirection from the pro-warming lobby. A line going up has no meaning unless you understand what it means.

        This is the actual temperatures (that those joules are based on). 0.0027C per year, and 0.3C by the year 2100. How is that even relevant to the +3.25C predicted at the surface by 2100.

        ————-

        And then what about the deeper Ocean below 2000 metres? Well that appears to be cooling so the ocean is not really absorbing much energy at all on a total basis. The vast majority of the GHG forcing is actually missing, more than 90% of it.

      • To Bill Illis,

        Oh, this “actual temperatures” argument again. Please show your working. Otherwise I think we can assume that you have taken the increase in heat content and divided by the estimated heat capacity of the ocean. In other words you have assumed, with no evidence whatsoever, that the whole ocean has warmed by the same amount.

        Jo Nova, presumably with her inamorato, much admired by the Noble Viscount, came up with the same piece of childish reasoning a few months ago.

      • Jimbo, love the graph with the confidence bars. However, I can readily explain why they are so confident. No matter what happens, their predictions will be accurate as these two Guardian articles point out…

      • Bill h, it appears to me he took the very same 0 to 2000 meters in the chart posted by Breven, which he was responding to. He also added, for your notice, a graph of the estimated warming for different data sets.

      • Bevan, you really believe that a few hundred, non-randomly placed sensors are capable of measuring the heat content of the oceans, much less to 4 or 5 digits of accuracy?
        Before the Argos system, there were even fewer sensors.
        The reality is that the heat you claim to see is so far below the error bars that it’s idiotic to even mention it.

      • the warming oceans combined with the pause show that you cannot warm the atmosphere more than the oceans for any significant length of time.

        because the oceans have such a fantastically large thermal mass in relation to the change in CO2 forcing, most of the the atmospheric increase in temperature from increasing CO2 is transitory. It will be absorbed by the oceans with little net effect in the long term, because it takes centuries or CO2 forcing to warm the oceans to any significant degree.

      • Bevan – I suggest you try presenting your ocean heat data in deg C, then tell us how long it will take to achieve +2 deg C (to the nearest millenium will do). The simple fact is of course that while the heat content of the deep ocean is of itself interesting, it is irrelevant to the world’s climate which involves only the atmosphere and the sea surface.

    • Beven: You deny that climate changes naturally? You think climate stays the same except when man burns fossil fuel? What it is that you believe? Sounds like you are in denial of facts. Tell us one thing, just one, that you disagree with that was written –and support it.

      • Bevan, you are kidding right? Scientists knew the temperature of the ocean 6,000 ft deep in 1970 to create that graph? Are you 97% sure about that?

      • Beven: You agree that there has been no warming of the surface of the globe and point to the increased ocean heat content. This brings up a question that I have wondered about and that maybe you can answer, since you seem to be aware of the big picture. How does an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increase the heat content of the ocean below its surface without warming the surface of the ocean or the land? Can you please describe a rational and scientific mechanism for CO2 in the atmosphere to be able to add energy to the deep ocean at the same time that there is no increase in the temperature of the surface of the land or the ocean. How does the energy get down there without increasing any temperatures on the way? And the energy must be coming from the ~1%/year increase in CO2, which in total is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, which in total, as you point out, has only ~2% of the heat capacity of the ocean that it supposed to be heating. Thanks for your help. I really want to know.

      • Hi Glenncz,

        Yes, I am >97% confident scientists had some idea of the temperature of the ocean in the 1970s.

        Below is a plot of the spatial distribution of data at 2000 m for the year 1970, which contributes to the time series of global ocean heat content shown above.

        The data distribution is undoubtedly limited; however, even including the uncertainties in these early measurements, there remains a warming trend between the 1970s and present

        A good review of the uncertainties in global ocean heat content is available at Judith Currys website http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/

        Bevan

      • To James Loux,

        It’s quite simple: most of the solar insolation hitting the Earth is absorbed in the first 100 m of the sea anyway. The effect of increasing GHG is that less of this heat is then lost by the sea, hence it warms. There is no need to postulate some outlandish mechanism by which heat is transferred from sea to atmosphere and then somehow returned to the sea by the atmosphere due to increasing GHG.

      • james Loux, “How does an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increase the heat content of the ocean below its surface without warming the surface of the ocean or the land?”

        CO2 obviously doesn’t heat the ocean, rather it cools the surface by forcing evaporation (which does not warm the atmosphere).

        What does heat up the ocean below the surface is short wave radiation from the Sun that the ocean traps. The Ocean is the real Greenhouse.

    • Bevan, a majority of Democrats have believed and preached for over 18 years, without any observable evidence, that the climate-change boogie man is coming to put an end to the world as we know it. How much longer can you live in this irrational state of panic without ever questioning your dogma or your sanity?

    • It is obvious that Republicans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed.
      Democrats? Not so much.

      Can I ask how this occurred? The Democrats have the MSM, the IPCC, and countless (and I do mean countless) government agencies and non profits all singing from the same song sheet to blame for their belief system. All the Republicans have is some supposed big oil/big coal funded propaganda that nobody can seem to find the actual funding of or the actual production of. Oh, and some facts I suppose, those pesky facts like the models and their projections being so wrong that the IPCC has has to admit that they are wrong.

      Seriously, I am surprised at the polarization evident in the exit poll. I doubt that the MSM/IPCC/gvt reports explains the depth of Democtrats belief system anymore than the facts explain the Republican belief system on this issue. Just as the Arctic ice decline no more predicts global warming than does the Antarctic record extent presage an impending ice age, I expect that the real explanation is much more complicated and nuanced than that.

      • I’m simply pointing out here that the results of that exit poll could be interpreted in a number of ways. It could equally be argued that republican voters are ‘brainwashed’ by the views of the conservative media/blogs etc they follow.

      • Bevan:
        You need to get up to speed on the science. When you do, you will see what is really going on.
        But as long as you confuse “global warming” with SST, you flunk the intelligence test.

      • Also, those who are unaware that the late warming trend ended before this century began are likewise none-too-bright.

      • mpainter: I don’t quite understand, where have I mentioned Sea Surface Temperature (SST)? the plot posted above is the global ocean heat content from 0 to 2000 m depth.

      • Bevan flunks again.
        Do a little research, my friend, and find out what factor determines SST.Do that, and you won’t seem so dumb when you comment here.

      • mpainter: The factors determining SST are set out nicely here for you in the heat balance equation of the oceans mixed layer (Qui, 2000). It is a simple equation. What’s not to understand?

        Qiu, B., 2000: Interannual variability of the Kuroshio Extension System and its impact on the wintertime SST field. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,30,1486–1502

      • More cut and paste?
        You show that you are utterly clueless as to what determines SST. Now I could tell you in a word, but I won’t, not until you ask.

      • Bevan,
        Insolation. Insolation (sw radiation) determines SST, less whatever heat loss. IR has nothing to do with SST, nor ocean heat content. I am always amazed to find someone who, claiming science expertise, who does not understand this elementary fact of radiative physics.
        Ocean heat derives from insolation plus a small, indeterminable amount of geothermal heat.
        Greenhouse gas, CO2, IR, has nothing to do with it.
        Next test question:
        What does OHC have to do with AGW?

      • mpainter, how come water from my overflow pipes freezes during cloudless winter nights, but generally not on cloudy nights?

      • MikeUK
        I don’t know but I can venture a guess.
        Clear nights are cooler than cloudy nights.
        You need to educate yourself on the radiative physics of water. IR cannot warm water. This is not only theory but this principle is easily demonstrated.

      • Here Mike Jonas advertises his ignorance of the subject, as well. That makes three on this same thread, unless the two mikes are the same.

      • mpainter, whether or not IR can warm water is a red herring, because we know that warm air can warm water.

      • Do we actually have two Mikes?
        MikeUK, do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the subject. Water is opaque to IR.

      • Bevan,
        No more cut and paste, please. State your point or get lost. I am tired of dealing with ignorant people.
        Do you deny the opacity of water to IR?

      • Bevan,
        More cut and paste. Evidently that is all you can do. This time SKS.
        Now you reveal yourself. Look on the right hand side of WUWT at the bar that lists the various blogs. Down at the very bottom, you will see SKS listed in a category by itself: UNRELIABLE.
        Bevan, give up. You look more and more pitiable, with your cut and paste pseudoscience.

      • mpainter: [snip]

        ***

        [REPLY: This is another screen name of Gordon Ford, beckleybud, H Grouse, juan, etc. This commenter is persona non grata here. ~mod.]

      • joy147 says:

        Just because WUWT says SKS is “unreliable” does not make it so. In fact, this site is not too unreliable either.

        Read the WUWT right sidebar, under “Skeptical Science”. It is a well known fact that they are unreliable. That blog is the only one with that ‘unreliable’ designation.

      • mpainter, does your theory withstand the success of microwave ovens? Anyway, that is a red herring, take an ice cube out of your fridge and watch what the warm air does to it. Are you saying that ocean water is immune to heating? Of course if the ocean is already warmer than the air then the outcome will just be that it remains warmer than it would be under cooler air.

        The greenhouse effect is: IR –> warmer air –> warmer ocean. Yes, it takes a very long time to have much effect on the ocean, but you lose all credibility if you deny it completely.

    • Please critique the essay point by point to indicate the “errors” , Or like others from the left persuasion, are you confused by the factual language? If so, just go slowly through the documentation, and highlight any statement you wish to refute, THEN provide a factual point-by-point retort.

      • Bevan said the now old excuse that the energy is going into the oceans. Bevan is unaware of several thing about the Ocean data sets.
        First of all, their error bars are well larger then the measured warming.
        Second; even so, the warming they do report is ,like the atmospheric readings, about 1/2 what the models predict.
        Third; there are no observations of the heat getting to the observed warmed areas.
        And last, but not least, there is no known mechanism for how a small fraction of a degree of warmer ocean
        water is going ever defy the laws of atrophy, and manifest in the atmosphere as anything ever then the same very small fraction of a degree of warming. (In short, even if the ocean measurements are 100 percent correct, it shows us that the oceans will successfully buffer whatever atmospheric charged warming or cooling occurs, just like they always have.)

        Oh, and a bonus fact overlooked by Beven. The IPCC climate models have always predicted the troposphere to warm by about double the rate of the surface, meaning the models are in fact, worse then we thought.

    • I am also very curious for Bevin to explain to me how the heat got into the deep ocean without first heating up the atmosphere (which suposedly is where this heat is created by A-CO2).

    • A couple of questions Bevan.
      Why are we suddenly talking heat content rather than temperature? Or to put it another way – how much temperature change are we talking about?
      By my calcs that change in heat content translates to 0.02C. ie statistically ZERO. ie a ficticious artifact.
      Also, how has Heat Content been measured? Is it measured directly or is it inferred from something else?
      Well I guess it must have been measured and calculated from temperature data. No?
      Odd when we are talking temps to suddenly convert to heat content. Why do that? Would it be to try and camouflage the fact that the temperature change is so ridiculously small that nobody would fall for it?
      Anyway, how is this change in temperature measured? Argo buoys?
      Really? So there is one argo buoy for every 300,000 cubic km of seawater and the can measure the temperature of that sea water to an accuracy of 0,005C? WOW!!!
      Amazing technology!!!
      Or amazing bare faced Bravo Sierra…..

    • We are living during the modern warm period that started approximately 150 years ago at the end of the “Little Ice Age”. Life on Earth is getting better just like it did during the last three warm periods (Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Minoan Warm Period). In between these warm periods there are cold/dry periods where things get bad. They are called Bond events bond event 0 also known as the Little Ice Age, bond event 1 also known as the Migration Period coinciding with the all of Rome and bond event 2 possibly triggering the collapse of Late Bronze Age cultures.

      We are also living during the Holocene interglacial during the current Quaternary glaciation. The Holocene climate optimum occurred (the warmest period of the Holocene) around 8,000 years ago and the earth has been slowly cooling ever since. I am far more worried about the end of the Holocene interglacial and the start of the next glaciation; than I am about the possible return to the conditions of the middle ages Rome or even of the Holocene climate optimum.

      • The earth is currently <60°F.
        What if it went back up to 70° – 75° as it was before we fell into the last full ice age.
        Instead of our present interglacial, would we be able to cope if it got really hot again, naturally?

    • Bevan,

      “It is analogous of trying to conclude someones identity from seeing only their feet.”

      But wasn’t it the CAGW Climate science cartel who told us that their hypothesis rested on those feet?

      So, now they claim it’s the knees.

    • You may think what you want, Bevan, but after the rebuke you’ve gotten from dozens of other commenters, I stand by my original comment.

      Democrats are trying to foist Climate Control on the US, and you should get educated regarding the link between Agenda 21 and Global Warming if you want an explanation.

      I know it’s hard to admit you’ve supported a party that brainwashes their acolytes to the detriment of humanity, but that’s what’s been going on.

      And because of policies already implemented, this Global Warming meme has contributed to the deaths of millions of our poor world-wide.

      Think about that–you are complicit. I recommend criminal charges based on genocide.

      So it actually goes way beyond being brainwashed, Bevan. Even stupidity doesn’t excuse you.

  3. The future will look back on our deluded time with bemusement. Climate change is the phlogiston theory de jour. Meanwhile, mild pleasant weather continues, with the terrified screams of the left in the background as the soundtrack to this madness.

  4. Currently, “climate” meaning global temperatures, is not changing. Nut change is normal, so it will go up or down sooner or later. No problems in nature.

    But to me, the hysteria is a serious issue. We have seen stats that Spain lost two other jobs for every “green” job they bragged about. Their economy is not famous for thriving. So called “greens” have done constant harassment of American energy companies, and whaddya know, we are in a serious recession. This is bad not only for human happiness, but also for nature as we can’t afford to protect the actual environment.

    Worst of all, cold weather kills both human beings (see Indur Goklani’s research) and other creatures, while warming is GOOD. We have to cheer bad news and groan about healthier conditions. I have a BIG problem with that. And carbon dioxide is the basis of terrestrial life.

  5. At the end of the Ice Age temperature increased 10 degrees Celsius in one 50-year period, and sea level rose three meters. Nature adapted readily; there are no documented extinctions during that period that have been connected to the very rapid and very large increase in both temperature and sea level. Coral reefs grew apace with the rising seas above, and the enormous release of methane had unremarkable effects. For much more, read Richard P. Alley’s “The Two-Mile Time Machine” http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6916.html
    There have been five warm periods since the end of the Ice Age, each not as warm as its predecessor. 90% of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than any year of the past 100, per Greenland ice cores. The lesson to be learned is that Nature adapts to change, including humans, the most adaptable of all. All we have to fear is alarmism itself.

    • You don’t see a distinction between the survival of a few million scattered hunter-gatherers and that of a huge, technologically-dependent society of 7 billion people? It’s no coincidence that civilization has only grown to its present heights under conditions of unusual climactic stability since the last ice age.

      And yes, CO2 is changing our climate and weather, not some coincidental natural cycle. That’s no longer theory, it’s visible now to the casual observer.

      Have at me, people.

      [Reply: First and last warning: use one screen name. This is your third. Further infractions will result in being a reader, and nothing more. ~mod.]

      • And yes, CO2 is changing our climate and weather,

        Have at me, people.
        ————-

        It is usually always an “exercise in futility” to argue with someone about their nurtured religious beliefs.

      • In point of fact, the last 60 years, during the time in which global warming change has been the greatest, has also seen the greatest progress in human civilization.

        by virtually every measure, all that can be said about global warming, is that it has been very, very good for human civilization.

        the problem is by and large one of experience. those who haven’t lived though the bad times think the past was some sort of magical place where nothing ever went wrong. where people never went hungry, where no one died due to bad weather. where the air and water was clean. So when they hear the news reports today, they think it is something new, that things must be getting worse. they aren’t. they are getting very much better.

        the EPA wasn’t created because we had clean air and clean water. what we had was dirty air and dirty water. the EPA was created to clean it up. only now, now that the job is done, the EPA doesn’t know to shut itself off. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, the EPA is continuing to pump water, long after the room is flooded.

      • You have no proof that it’s CO2 doing the changing. And you have no proof that the results, if they were there, would be all bad. Other than that, pretty good.

      • Flashman says:

        …CO2 is changing our climate and weather, not some coincidental natural cycle. That’s no longer theory, it’s visible now to the casual observer.

        Oh, brother. Another one.

        OK Flash, if CO2 is changing everything, post a measurement of AGW. Just one number is enough. Make sure it’s a real world, empirical, testable measurement, specifically quantifying the ∆T due to human emissions, out of total global warming.

        Give us the % of global warming caused by human activity. Give us that number.

      • I don’t understand the question. Can you calculate precisely how much of someone’s lung cancer is attributable to smoking? If not, do you deny that smoking causes cancer (if you do, there’s no point in this discussion.) It’s the same premise.

        The reason why people are concerned about AGW in spite of a barrage of propaganda from fossil fuel company shills and their knee-jerk contrarian supporters is because they can see it happening; they don’t need to be told. And suggesting that the changes we’re seeing only coincidentally reflect those predicted by scientists after decades of research in multiple field of study is analogous to finding a man dead with a smoking pistol in his hand and a hole in his head and assuming he died of a heart attack, because people have often died of heart attacks in the historical record.

      • Flashman says:

        I don’t understand the question.

        That’s OK. I suggest that you read the WUWT archives for a few months. Maybe then you will uderstand. Sometimes these concepts take a little time.

        For other readers: It’s very simple, really. Every physical process can be quantified. Therefore, the percentage of global warming caused by human activity [AGW] can be quantified. It can be reduced to a number; the percent of global warming caused by humans, out of total global warming.

        Gordon Ford: that comment makes no more sense than the first time you posted it in your link.

        Let me repeat: I am asking for a number, quantifying the % of warming caused by humans. As a percentage, which would be a specific number. What is that percentage?

        Please be prepared to support your answer, if you have one. The number must be based on a testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the amount of AGW.

        Please provide answers showing: who did the measuring? What instruments did they use? Where is their data, methods, metadata and methodology published? In what journal? And so on.

        Please don’t be like another unethical commenter [who was caught pretending to be a different poster], by never answering that straightforward question. We learn by discussion, which requires honest Q&A. So please just provide a number — or say you cannot. Either answer is fine with me.

      • Gordon Ford November 8, 2014 at 7:03 pm
        dbstealey
        ..
        The number you are looking for is…. (drum roll)……42
        ..
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/02/the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-is-nothing-more-than-a/#comment-1783152

        +++++++++++++++
        Gordon:

        You are linking to another post where you made yourself look uninformed. Is this your way of promoting yourself as a dunce? Are you just trolling because you’re another hating liberal.

      • Flash says:

        The reason why people are concerned about AGW in spite of a barrage of propaganda from fossil fuel company shills and their knee-jerk contrarian supporters is because they can see it happening; they don’t need to be told.

        1. “People” is vague and meaningless. What ‘people’? How many people? The fact is, the public is fast losing interest in the AGW false alarm. They are no longer concerned.

        2. This has no more to do with “fossil fuel companies” than it does with tobacco companies. Trying to ‘demonize by association’ is akin to ad hominem attacks: it takes the place of scientific evidence, and I note that you have posted no evidence at all.

        3. What can we see “happening”? There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Extreme weather events have steadily declined for decades. There is nothing “happening” that would cause any alarm.

        Your pejorative labels like “contrarian” and “shills” means that you have no credible scientific arguents. You are like Gordon Ford, who facetiously throws out a random number as if it has any meaning. Neither of you have any verifiable facts to support your beliefs — that is clear in your comments, which are just emotional claptrap.

        Either support your position with scientific evidence, or you lose the debate. Simple as that.

      • Sir Harry – You are not worth “having at.” As you overlooked, I included all nature adapting rapidly, not just humans, who obviously adapted rapidly since civilization progressed quite rapidly under the rapidly increasing warmth following the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The first warm period, the Holocene Climatic Optimum, 8,000 to 4,000 years ago, was the longest and warmest period of the past 10,000 years. It was followed by the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and present warm period. Each warm period has been cooler than its predecessor, and sea levels were higher during previous warm periods than now. Recent sea level rise since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 was greater in the earliest half of the Twentieth Century than the latter, even though CO2 increased rapidly after 1950. Glacier retreat was similar. The glaciers in Glacier Bay, Alaska retreated 10 times farther before 1900 than after, as did the Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland featured in James Balog’s scientifically dishonest “Chasing Ice” film.

        Sir Harry, if you are going to have at someone, it’s best to do it with knowledge and facts, not bombast and baloney.

      • The Holocene Maximum saw warmer summers and colder winters than present in the Northern Hemisphere, but no change in the Southern, quite different from the global effects being experienced today.

        “After the little ice age early in the 19th century, sea level rose at 18 cm/cy (the historic rate) with no measurable acceleration until the mid-20th century, when thermal expansion associated with greenhouse warming became significant, contributing an additional 3 cm by the year 2000. Greenhouse-related sea level rise has accelerated to the present rate of 6 cm/cy, making the historic + greenhouse rate 24 cm/cy”.
        http://www.pnas.org/content/99/10/6550.full

      • Yo, Flash,

        You’re proving our point. Things were changing quite a bit before human emissions became a factor.

        Do some reading on the Null Hypothesis, it will help you understand.

      • @ Sir Harry Flashman: November 8, 2014 at 7:12 pm

        Can you calculate precisely how much of someone’s lung cancer is attributable to smoking?
        ———————-

        That’s an easy one ….. and the answer is …. zero (0), nada, zilch, none. And you can not provide or cite any actual, factual scientific evidence that proves otherwise.

        Remember, ….. association does not prove causation. And neither does “tick” marks on Medical Records prove that a patient’s death or diagnosed lung cancer is a direct cause or result of directly inhaling cigarette smoke or the breathing of secondhand cigarette smoke.

        It has only been during the past 70 or so years that the majority (80+-%) of the world’s population has not had to endure the breathing in of “smoke” from the burning of biomass pretty much every day of their lives. Duh, cancer rates have not drastically decreased since central-heating and electric/gas cooking has now become the norm in non-3rd World countries.

      • Do tell, Sir?

        What have you casually observed that proves to you the null hypothesis is completely and utterly wrong and today’s climate can in no way be recovering from the little ice age or just cruising along as climates like to do, naturally?
        Climate changes, and I got no problem with that.

        I don’t know any regulars here (at WUWT) that would promote lying as a way to discuss the science of climate change.
        Like Peter Gleick, Stephen Schneider, and those pillars of honesty and concern for the little people of the world Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel and John Kerry.

        When the only solutions offered are
        1. Make billionaires out of millionaires through a Carbon Credit Scheme.
        or
        2. Let governments confiscate trillions of tax dollars so politicians can give it to their favorite despots and tyrants around the globe so they can spend lots of extra money for weapons and greater control.

        How can an honest person support either of these solutions as a way to save the planet?
        I don’t.
        Unless one had some other political cause they’d like to see come about?
        Like, they’d like to pay off their buddies or control world outcomes.
        If I believed the CAGW hypothesis I would not act like Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio.
        When their carbon footprint equals mine we can sit and honestly discuss saving the planet.

      • A couple of things:

        When I say “people can see it”, I mean exactly that. If you don’t believe me, ask around. Where I live we’ve had more than 3000 straight summer days without a record low temperature; the odds against that happening by chance are one in several billions. Or head to northern Canada where the permafrost is melting, and tell the people up there that climate change is a hoax. Still, change in and of itself doesn’t prove AGW – I was just pointing out that as things get worse, the denier or skeptic position will become increasingly untenable. There are reasons why 300,000 people marched in NYC, and they have nothing to do with propaganda or conspiracy.

        With regard to my proof I would refer you to the IPCC report or condensed explanations of same from sites like Skeptical Science, but my experience is that this is useless because responders will dismiss it because of the source, and instead snigger and harumph about Al Gore, conspiracies, Agenda 21 and God knows what else, instead of responding to the science. Which doesn’t really do credit to the site, rendering political what should be scientific.

        Thirdly, someone explain why “null hypothesis” is relevant here. Seriously.

        Also, while I’ve been occasionally snide and terse here, under this and other names, I genuinely want to be convinced that we aren’t headed for disaster. There are some smart people posting here, and I would love to see the evidence that changes my mind.

        And finally here’s an article – you can heap scorn on it because of the source (I know neither the Guardian nor Nuccitelli are popular in these parts), but I’d rather (if anyone has time and inclination) see a serious rebuttal. Thanks folks.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

      • Sir Harry Flashman: November 10, 2014 at 6:00 am

        Where I live we’ve had more than 3000 straight summer days without a record low temperature; the odds against that happening by chance are one in several billions.
        ——————-

        HA, you ain’t seen nuttin yet. How about 4000+ years of summer days of record high temperatures that were higher than you have ever witnessed? To wit:

        Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia

        Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P.

        Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.

        The above excerpted from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589499921233

      • Flashman says:

        Where I live we’ve had more than 3000 straight summer days without a record low temperature; the odds against that happening by chance are one in several billions.

        Where you live? Rank cherry-picking, which feeds your confirmation bias.

        Next:

        …northern Canada where the permafrost is melting, and tell the people up there that climate change is a hoax.

        More nonsense. The climate always changes, but the alarmist contingent never wakes up to that fact. Concerning permafrost: in Greenland the permafrost is melting, too, exposing long-frozen Viking villages. Any rational person can see that it was warmewr before it froze, and that current temperatures have not yet reached those of the MWP.

        Next:

        There are reasons why 300,000 people marched in NYC, and they have nothing to do with propaganda or conspiracy.

        No, it has to do with ‘cabon’ propaganda colonizing the minds of ignorant lemmings. Were you marching with them?

        Next:

        With regard to my proof…

        WHAT “proof”?? Skeptical science is not proof of anything, except maybe that gullible people can be fed nonsesne and believe it.

        Finally, a good question:

        …someone explain why “null hypothesis” is relevant here. Seriously.

        In order for current climate parameters to be shown to be unusual, they must exceed past parameters. That would falsify the Null Hypothesis. But as Dr. Roy Spencer points out, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means what we are currently observing is neither unprecedented, nor unusual. It has all happenbed before, and tyo a much greater degree. The fact is that we have been experiencing a “Goldilocks” climate for more than a century, with no ill effects.

        finally, you seem to believe that global warming continues. You are at odds with almost everyone. Even the UN/IPCC now admits that global warming has stopped. They call it a “pause”, and a “hiatus”, but same-same.

        As Samuel Cogar notes above:

        It is usually always an “exercise in futility” to argue with someone about their nurtured religious beliefs.

      • Mr. Flashman,

        Regarding your link to the Guardian and their ten points, may I deconstruct? Thank you:

        1) Nutticelli lamely asserts that global warming hasn’t stopped. But even the IPCC says it has stopped. Dana needs to get up to speed.

        2) Every citation asserting that the percentage of AGW is ‘known’ is based on always-wrong computer models. Furthermore, Nutticelli says that computer models can hindcast — avoiding the problem that computer models have never been able to accurately forecast. None of them can: not one GCM [ multi-million dollar computer model was able to forecast the most significant event of the past century: the fact that global warming has stopped, for many years now.]

        3) The IPCC was recently caught using about 40% of all it’s input and arguments from the World Wildlife Fund, an NGO/QUANGO. Nutticelli tries to make them sound professional and unbiased, but we know better: the IPCC is a propaganda organ of the UN.

        4) Nutticelli again avoids the central fact that climate models cannot accurately forecast. He tries to cover that up with misdirection, by saying that models hindcast. But they cannot predict anything accurately or consistently.

        5) This is just more computer model nonsense and misdirection, which ignores the plain fact that models can’t accurately predict anything.

        6) More attempts to rationalize the failure of climate models. Nutticelli is getting very defensive about the consistent failure of his models, isn’t he?

        7) I challenge Nutticelli or anyone else to produce verifiable, empirical evidence of any global harm due to CO2. The 32,000 co-signers of the OISM Petition state that CO2 is ‘harmless’. Contrast that with Nuticelli claiming otherwise — with no supporting evidence.

        8) Again with the “too much water will kill you” nonsense. Too much of anything is bad. But we are talking about a tiny trace gas that has risen from 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in ten thousand — over a century and a half, and with no global harm resulting. Nutticellis is a desperate numpty.

        9) Neither global precipitation nor droughts are increasing. Nuticelli wants to pretend they are, but in fact extreme weather events have been declining for decades, debunking years of contrary alarmist predictions.

        10) Nuticelli pretends the MWP was not as warm as now. That is false: Viking settlements are still emerging from permafrost, where they have been frozen since the LIA. That means the MWP must have been warmer than now. Logic isn’t one of Nutticelli’s strong points.

        It is telling that neither Nuticelli nor any other climate alarmist fanatic will debate scientific skeptics any more. Why not? Because in every debate with skeptics, alarmists have been slaughtered. So now they hide out from debates, and emit their globaloney in anti-science publications like the Guardian, where they do not have to defend their pseudo-science.

        You might have some good arguments, Flash. But I wouldn’t know, since you haven’t posted any yet.

      • Here’s a useful article demonstrating a couple of things:

        – firstly, that while warming has slowed in the first part of the 21st century, it has not stopped, and is well within the bounds that would be expected based on natural variation. With Hadcrut data corrected for a previous (known) Arctic gap, the overall warming is about 0.02C / decade from 1998-2013 vs 0.029 for the period 1992 – 2006. Considering the period starts with a big El Nino, and that we wouldn’t expect to see a completely linear increase, this is reasonable.

        – to the claim that models have been inaccurate, there are several models from IPCC reports included which match current trends quite well, including one that predicts a pause from 1995 to 2015 before moving up rapidly. Where are the skeptic models, anyway?

        Outside of the article, in regard to the MWP, there is absolutely no doubt that climate has fluctuated both in historical times and before. However, it responds to forcings, and right now the key forcing is human activity.

        Will it be catastrophic? I wouldn’t disagree for a second that there’s a great deal of uncertainty around how this could play out. But in general I think we’ve optimized our world based on current climate, and we are not going to be easily able to cope with farm becoming desert or swamp.

      • I’m pretty sure that GW exists but the real cause is the birth of Mr. Flash here. In fact, it is his emissions that are surely causing all the problems of the world. This is a fact that no one can deny, if you deny that Mr. Flash’s emissions are the problems I suggest you should be jailed. I also suggest we plug up all of Mr. Flash’s orifices until he he emits no more, and surely the world will be better off and the GW problem will be finally solved.

      • Flashman says:

        With regard to my proof I would refer you to the IPCC report… &etc.

        You think that’s “proof”??

        You need to study up some more, chief.

      • re: moderator – I wasn’t trying to be deceptive – in fact I acknowledged it somewhere else – I just had trouble finding something I liked. I’m planning to go with this one :).

    • “All we have to fear is alarmism itself” …Kinda’ sums it all up, don’t it? Wonder how much a billboard rents for in Paris…

    • Mike Restin,

      Looks like Flashman has skedaddled, along with Mr. joy and Gordon Ford. Before they disappeared, Flashman said:

      You don’t see a distinction between the survival of a few million scattered hunter-gatherers and that of a huge, technologically-dependent society of 7 billion people?

      Not much. All of humanity could easily fit within a 1 km sphere, with room to spare. Alarmists like to use big numbers, but they don’t understand the perspective.

      [BTW, mikerestin, excellent chart, thanx for posting it. We are on the cold side of the climate right now. A 2º rise in T would be very welcome. And a 3º – 4º rise wouldn’t hurt.]

      • I could never leave y’all, this site is very instructive.

        It’s really not about how much personal space we take up, it’s about how much usable space it takes to keep us all alive. Which is a quite a bit, even under optimal climactic conditions.

      • Flashman,

        Glad to hear you’re willing to learn.

        The problem isn’t the number of people. There is plenty of room for triple the current global population. Termites take up more space than humans, and emit more methane and CO2. No, the problem is that everyone wants to live in the choice spots.

        There are many millions of acres of vacant land in Alaska, Siberia, Manchuria, and similar places. But it seems folks want to live in Malibu, London, and New York City. The ones who complain the loudest live where lots of other people live.

        Also, it doesn’t take that much land to keep everyone alive. But again, we don’t just want to live, we want to live well. Kobe beef takes a lot more land than soybeans. Even so, it’s all sustainable.

        So the climate doesn’t matter. Not at all, really. That is just a diversion. Misdirection. A way to beat people over the head with guilt feelings in order to promote an eco-agenda that most people do not want.

        Now that the ‘carbon’ scare is failing, let me paraphrase economist J.M. Keynes: when the facts change, intelligent people change their minds. What do you do?

      • Sir Harry Flashman November 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm
        I could never leave y’all, this site is very instructive.

        It’s really not about how much personal space we take up, it’s about how much usable space it takes to keep us all alive. Which is a quite a bit, even under optimal climactic conditions.
        ++++++++++++
        To add to what dbstealey wrote: Just think about how much more productive life could be if we had more CO2 and a little more warmth. When it’s a little colder, life gets brutal for many people really fast. Think 2C colder and look up historical evidence of bad times.

        If CO2 were half of what it is right now, (200ppm) we would ALL starve. Photosynthesis cannot happen at lower levels! Think about it, at 280, plants adapted to be able to survive at 280ppm, but higher levels help most plants thrive.

        We are all being told that more CO2 will fry the ecosystem… when all I see is evidence to support CO2 is the basis of all life on this planet.

  6. Is there a meta-graph anywhere of the past 30 years of temp? Does anyone know of one? I’d like to see that, so that we can’t be accused of the cherry-picking that goes on with warmists. Choosing one dataset (RSS) from 1997 is all well and good, but I’d like to see a combined result from the same year and different years. Can it be done in woodfortrees? Cheers, if anyone knows of one.

    • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
      November 7, 2014 at 11:16 pm

      You can do it in WfTs, but bear in mind that WfTs doesn’t include NOAA and that both the UAH and HadCRT4 versions it uses aren’t the latest.

      All the data sets used here have been offset to the 1981-2010 base period used by UAH as explained in the notes section. I have added the respective linear trends for RSS and UAH. There is a considerable difference between them.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/offset:-0.10/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1997/offset:-0.39/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1997/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1997/mean:12/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12/trend

    • Yes Jim, you can do it in WoodForTrees by choosing the ‘Woodfortrees Temperature Index’ from the drop-down box as the data source. The Woodfortrees Temperature Index’ is the mean of four main datasets: HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH.
      First, follow the link http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1985/to:2015
      To change the year edit the value in the ‘From (time)’ box and/or the ‘To(time) box’ and click on ‘Plot graph’.
      To change the data source select one from the drop-down box and click on ‘Plot graph’.

      • Note: HadCRUT4 is the update on HadCRUT3 and the set currently in use by HadCRU and the IPCC (though the version used at WfTs still isn’t the latest HadCRUT4 product).

      • Right, using such tools as advised so gratefully (also thanks to Karl W. Braun), this is what I get:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
        However, it should be noted that I can ONLY get level or downward trend lines from 2001. Honestly (and that’s what we should always strive for – not lying like warmists) we should be saying “No increase in warming since 2001”. I don’t think, for one moment, that we should be saying “18 years” as Mr Brenchley and others do. It’s cherry-picking one dataset, and that’s something that, again, warmists do. We should be above this. The whole subject of global warming is based on lies and half-truths. On this side, we should be honest.

        Since 2001 there has been no increase in global warming. That is a true statement (provided by meta-data) that cannot be argued with. But if we say “18 years” then that can be argued with, and it is used on warmist sites. So (personal plea), can we please start right here by saying ’12 years’, and nothing else?

      • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley November 8, 2014 at 3:26 am
        …” I don’t think, for one moment, that we should be saying “18 years” as Mr Brenchley and others do. It’s cherry-picking one dataset, and that’s something that, again, warmists do.”
        ———————————
        If someone asked how long I’ve been a non smoker, I’d take today’s date and subtract the date I smoked my last cigarette.
        That’s how I calculate δt.
        How else can you show how long something has been going on?

        So, I take today’s date and work my way back to when the data shows warming and thar-ya-go.
        Cause any earlier and the premise is wrong cause there’d be some warming.

        One may argue it is meaningless.
        One may believe the climate at some point will change…drastically.

        But, m’Lord is correct … it’s still true.

    • I do a six-monthly analysis of all five principal datasets. The mean of the two satellite datasets and the mean of the three terrestrial datasets give the same result: more than 13 years with no global warming. The next six-monthly report will appear in January 2015.

      • Mr. Brenchley, what do you make of the differences observed in comparing 1998 vs 2014 datasets. Specifically I note that both satellite data sets show 2014 as being considerably cooler in 2014 vs 1998. In fact the satellite datasets anomaly is greatly reduced for every month of the year showing 2014 as cooler then 1998. In both satellite data sets the 1998 anomalies are double the 2014 anomalies. Also RSS is in near perfect synch with USHCN “raw” http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/why-i-trust-rss-part-2/

        I do not know of any other stats in the data sets where the satellites are so divergent from the surface record.

    • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
      November 8, 2014 at 3:26 am

      “…. it should be noted that I can ONLY get level or downward trend lines from 2001. Honestly (and that’s what we should always strive for – not lying like warmists) we should be saying “No increase in warming since 2001″. ”
      _____________________

      Well said. There has been a pause in warming, but at the moment it’s been since 2001, not 1998.

      Lord Monckton is correct to point out that there is no warming trend in RSS since 1998, but in this respect RSS is an outlier. The rest of the main data sets all show warming since 1998 and with quite good agreement. It’s not statistically significant, but it’s there in the best estimate data nonetheless.

      Of course RSS may be right and the rest wrong, but that seems improbable.

      • @ 2DavidR
        November 8, 2014 at 9:22 am
        ” The rest of the main data sets all show warming since 1998 and with quite good agreement. It’s not statistically significant, but it’s there in the best estimate data nonetheless.”
        ———-

        I think that the one problem with considering the famous hiatus is that people actually mislead themselfs by assuming-considering that the hiatus represents or means only no warming or not increased temps while hiatus represents and means actually both: no warming and not cooling, no increase and no decrease of temps, represents and means the average state of a period in question in regard to temps trend. In reality still in the period of a hiatus there is possible to have warming and cooling signals but for as long as both statistically insignificant the hiatus remains.
        So if you still can show an insignificant warming signal from 1998, still there can be shown a insignificant cooling from 2001 and a more significant cooling from 2005-2006 to now, but for the later period still that time period makes it insignificant, as it been a to short a period.

        What I am trying a say is that it seems to me a bit of illogical to say that no warming is not quite true because an insignificant warming signal still there (which means nonetheless a warming), while completely ignoring that there also an insignificant cooling too (nonetheless a cooling) allowing for an estimation of a trend considered as an hiatus.
        If the cooling signal persists as it has done for the last 6-7 years then for any year in the future the hiatus will extend a year in the past too(I think that already has been happening for the last year), othewise it will end up on turning in a cooling trend. That is one of the main “drives” behind the latests data fudging if you would ask me and that’s the reason why IPCC was “forced” to accept a hiatus.

        My take is that in 2 years time there will be a clearer picture, as as far as I can tell in the last 2 years up to now while no warming signal there the CO2 influence signal is there and it remains to be seen how the climate response to the condition will be unraveling.

        cheers

  7. It is true that, in the US, more Democrats can’t read a graph than Republicans.
    However, that does not make climate change a left-right issue in general.

    1) Democrats aren’t particularly left-wing.

    2) Green policies aren’t left-wing; green policies are regressive, E.g.
    -Transferring wealth from the poor to landowners and corporations via fuel bill, subsidised windfarms
    -Half a dozen recycling boxes are no problem if you have a porch or utility room but are a big imposition on those who live in flats or studios (the poor).
    -Restricting the right to travel by raising fuel costs not by need to travel.
    -Subsidised public transport for all would be left-wing but no green party demands that.

    3) In Europe, both political wings are deep green. That demonstrates that green isn’t necessarily a left-right issue.

    • “In Europe, both political wings are deep green.”

      If a political party was actually ‘Green” they would immediately ban and remove all wind turbines and solar concentrating non-energy plant.

      A “Green” political party would want more CO2, and not demonise it, because they would know that CO2 is the building block of ALL life on the wonderful 1-in-a-million planet of ours.

      Trouble is that they are colour-blind.

      They are NOT “Green”

      In political parlance Green = Totalitarian Socialist = regression

    • “1) Democrats aren’t particularly left-wing.”

      Actually that is exactly what the ones who are elected and those that elected them are.

      • Democrats are right wing when compared to European center-right parties. Anyway, more important than the dichotomy is the real politics applied. At the moment Sweden is pretty much leading all Nordic countries into despair and destruction by trying to be so good example to the world. Goodness does not help, nor God, if the decisions done are not based on facts but ideas that sound nice and well-behaved.

        There are no big parties in Europe that would speak heavily for the freedom of the individual. This has gone so far that private smallbusinesses are being tortured to death in Nordic countries. Feminism and gay rights are protected by greens as well as Moslims, but right to live, do business, speak freely and choose your way of living is heavily in danger. Really.

        Lets say it like this: Europe is full of “right-wing socialists”, who want to control every aspect of society for all people. Not that Sweden would be bad, but it lacks future growth opportunities. It also suppresses disliked people who oppose the system, Jimmy Åkesson as a good example.

    • Green policies are indeed regressive. The irony lies in the fact that they are perceived by the masses as progressive. And anyone clamouring for renewable energy and carbon taxes really believe they are right on progressive champions of social justice. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so damaging.

      • I truly doubt that people advocating energy and carbon taxes really believe they are right-on progressive champions of social justice.

        It is just too illogical. Personally, I think they are so well-off (comfortable)that they have abandoned the left-right divide and the inherent ‘total wealth’ vs ‘impact of lack of wealth on the poorest’ questions.

        Instead they seek to maintain the status quo in aspic. It’s all about “sustainability”. They can’t imagine anything could actually get better.

    • The Democrat Party of 2014 is indeed Left Wing. Profoundly so. It’s not FDR’s or even LBJ’s coalition any more.

      While by US standards, both wings in Europe might be Left, there is IMO a perceptible difference on the issue of CACA. In Britain, for instance, the three main parties now (might change if UKIP continues gaining) all embrace CACA to some extent, there are at least some voices among the Tories who don’t. Strangely, Labour, in which coal miners used to hold important sway (when I lived in Merrie Olde in the ’70s) is now even more beholden to the CACA myth than the supposedly more capitalistic, Conservative Party. However I’ll grant you that the Tory leadership is predominantly disgustingly CACA-covered.

    • What?

      Barack Hussein O and the rest of his administration are pushing hard for climate control, saying it is the most pressing issue the earth faces!

      And the Republicans/Right are laughing at them.

      Climate change is a left-right issue in general because the Democrats are pushing it hard, and yes, Democrats ARE particularly left-wing (Left, Liberal and Democrat are interchangeable terms).

      It has very little to do with the ability of Democrats the read a graph. They’re supposed to be the “science embracers”, but it turns out that’s simply their War on Truth.

    • It’s not a left right issue.
      It’s a control issue.
      It’s an “I know what’s best” issue and I’ll get the government to make you do what’s right.
      Democrats, Republicans and Greens promote more government ipso facto we get more government no matter the political party.
      Any imposition from government is just if you’re doing the imposing.

  8. I am up for planting trees and recycling batteries. But these bastards that want to tax us, take a pinch, then send the rest to third world dictators, can go jump in a lake.

  9. our most public intellectual, taxpayer-funded-ABC radio’s Phillip Adams bemoaned the mid-term election results this week, with guest Wuthnow:

    AUDIO: 6 Nov: ABC Late Night Live: Phillip Adams: Political power of Southern Baptists
    The political success of the modern US Republican Party is often credited to the organising ability of the religious right. And the source of the religious right’s power is Texas. A new book, ‘Rough Country: How Texas Became America’s Most Powerful Bible-Belt State’ investigates the political influence of the Southern Baptists.
    Guest: Robert Wuthnow, Professor of Sociology and the Director of the Centre for the Study of Religion at Princeton University.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/southern-baptists-and-us-politics/5871808

    beginning at 26 mins:
    WUTHNOW: at least for the forseeable future, the Republicans are going to have a strong grip on Texas.
    ADAMS: there may be another dynamic that will help, shall we say, NORMALISE southern politics. i cannot believe the young members of even the southern baptists, methodists, other evangelical groups are entirely immune from the CULTURAL INFLUENCES around them, issues like CLIMATE CHANGE MAY, IN FACT, RADICALISE THEM, AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY TO UNDERMINE THIS MONOLITHIC RIGHTWING FORCE.
    Wuthnow: Yes, that is absolutely correct. —

    LOL.

  10. no Pause in the insanity of the MSM, i’m afraid.

    Richard Glover is another ABC radio presenter, here in CAGW-infested Fairfax newspapers:

    8 Nov: SMH: Richard Glover: Knot for the highly strung
    Has humanity really outlived the need for knots? The Scouting movement thinks so. The British organisation this week announced that the ability to tie knots is no longer seen as an important Scouting skill, and will henceforth be replaced with activities such as “skateboarding” and “being a social worker”.
    This is all very well but will the world survive once the ability to tie a knot disappears? This could be the biggest existential threat to humanity since global warming and Ebola…
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/knot-for-the-highly-strung-20141104-11glhq.html

    Scientific American once again displaying how low they can go – with the headline & sub-heading bearing no relation to the story:

    7 Nov: Scientific American: Matt Smith: Cocaine Will Survive Global Warming
    The humble coca shrub has survived decades of efforts to eradicate it and global warming will not pose a greater challenge than that…
    But while scientists have raised alarms about the potential threats climate change may pose to other tropical commodities like chocolate and coffee, little effort has been spent exploring what an era of rising temperatures could mean for coca…
    But at this point, there’s little that can be said authoritatively about how coca itself may fare. Helling, the retired USDA soil chemist, said that if climate change accomplished what decades of eradication efforts didn’t, “nobody would be shedding any tears.”…
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cocaine-will-survive-global-warming/

  11. I wonder what would happen if the good Dr.Mears actually reduced the climate sensitivity of his beloved computer simulation models to where the models mimic the real data. I mean, as a scientist of no mean standing, would he be not a tad bit curious? Would he care to report on that?
    Doubt it.

    • You have a very salient point.

      What does happen to climate models when you reduce the CO2 sensitivity to zero ??

      I suspect that they may actually come quite a bit closer to reality.

      They will however always be marred by using pre-1979 HadCrut or Giss with the artificial trend built in, as a baseline,

      • I think that something close to your question has already been posted on WUWT . A few months back there was a report of a review of about 15 GCMs, most of which overestimated global warming , but 3 of which seemed close to reality.
        I wondered at the time whether the successful models had downplayed the role of CO2 and have tried since to recover the original post . Unfortunately I failed to bookmark it and cannot now find it in the WUWT archives. I am fairly sure that I did not imagine it and it would be very interesting to go back to the original source of the posting. Perhaps others remember it more clearly.

      • In any other science they would actively look at sensitivity in the models and reduce that out of curiosity. They tend to avoid it because it would end the gravy train.

    • Just guessing here, but I would imagine that the more they lowered the sensitivity, the flatter the predictions would become, simply because there’s nothing else in them there models that will change climate.

      • My gut says the effects of solar wind on cosmic ray influence of cloud formation would be of great importance in a true climate model. Certainly more than total radiance, which if I’ve read the thing correctly is the sun’s only influence that they recognize. Trouble is, we seem to know very little about the factors of cloud formation at various altitudes and cloud types, as well as many other even more complicated influences. Funding of research on non-CO2 climate drivers would only hurt their cause. If the alarmists allow the public to know how incomplete man’s total understanding of climate mechanics really is, they will lose their control advantage of playing the ‘certain and imminent disaster’ card. They have to keep the picture of their monster simple enough that people who do not think critically believe they have a good understanding.

  12. We are,I believe, in a period equivalent to Galileo’s.
    The Catholic Church had the master’s grip on that paradigm, & Galileo was upsetting their comfortable apple cart.
    Now the Banksters & big oil (same creature, different clothes) have a grip on the Western paradigm.
    They want control of the entire world, & a vast world depopulation, & the entire CAGW scare scam is a pathway toward their achieving that end. Their control of all major media has facilitated the promulgation of the myths needed to sustain their legend, such as overpopulation.
    As Galileo had to be silenced to maintain the RC legend, doubters & seekers after truth must now be denigrated as deniers, a term I grow increasingly annoyed with.
    A book to help understand the background : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.
    Thank you, Lord Christopher, clear & concise as ever.
    How the future will look back at us ?
    God knows.

    • Replace banksters and big oil with big government, Agenda 21 and socialists and we might be with you.

      • Big Govt, both parties, are a smokescreen. Both are owned by big money. Socialism Fascism & Communism, all were founded & funded by big money.
        Agenda 21 was formally written down in 1776 for the first time, as far as I’m aware, & the Agenda then,as now, is World Hegemony & the destruction of both free enterprise & the middle class.
        It’s a fascinating book, though written 1954 by a staunch Roman Catholic, with no attempt to be impartial.
        Well worth reading.

      • Mardler:

        [“We”?]

        The problem is big government, first, foremost, and always. Despite some claims, bankers do not control the government. At best it is a symbiosis, but the gov’t is always in charge.

        If the government wants to destroy bankers, it can. But bankers cannot destroy the government. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions do bankers have?

      • Mardler (& all), for a long time I pondered Rothschilds famous quote : “If I control the money,I care not who writes the laws” He did not mean he was only interested in money.

        He meant that he could control the zeitgeist, the mood of the time, via control of the press & the popular media, & thus control the political scene. Google : six corporations control the media.

        This can be seen in the UK, where the whole weight of the popular media, in particular the govt propaganda arm, the disgraceful BBC & the idiot Guardian, is firmly behind the CAGW scam. The whole population is deeply propagandised to believe in the ridiculous need to fight global warming, swiftly changed to climate change, when warming wasn’t happening.

        ( The exact same propaganda process was applied to whip the populace up for the Iraq war 2003, where WMD were morphed into “Regime Change” in seamless Orwellian fashion ).

        The 1%s Banksters/Corporate owned media establish the popular mood in the country, & the politicians, dependent on the popular vote, follow this mood. Thus we see all 3 major parties determined to be the greenest idiots ever. This is control of politicians from the bottom up.

        At the top, politicians are easily controlled by carrot & stick : rewards if they’re compliant, Revelations of past scandals if they do not follow the line. Assassinations have been carried out.

        And politicians have direct control of the military, while money has control of the politicians, & the mood of the country.

        Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.

        Video : Google : BILL STILL MONEY MASTERS

    • It was not the Catholic Church, but the ACADEMCIS who supported the Aristotlean (sp) world-view, who attacked Galileo, by turning HIS FRIEND THE POPE against him.

      • Not my recollection of history, but I’ll double check. I regard the RC Church as the oldest & most successful business in the World, & I was raised RC.

      • Sorry, but that is wrong, to put it mildly.

        Under the previous pope, GG was examined by the Roman Inquisition but allowed to remain free upon promising not to teach as fact heliocentrism, plainly against the Bible. After his former friend became pope, GG was allowed to publish his book on the two systems, ie geo- & heliocentrism, but only if he gave both positions. However he put the views of the pope into the mouth of the character Simpleton, ridiculing geocentrism.

        Not surprisingly, thus held up to ridicule, his former friend turned against him & the Inquisition returned with a vengeance. GG was lucky to get off with house arrest.

        So it was not some vague group of academics who supported Aristotle & Ptolemy, but GG’s erstwhile friend, Pope Urban VIII (formerly Maffeo Cardinal Barberini) who punished the scientist because he had so crudely attacked the head of the Catholic Church, personally, as Barberini saw it.

  13. Regarding some comments already posted going down the unfortunate path of focusing on political party loyalties, ultimately it comes down to whether one has (or still has) a child-like mind driven by emotion, susceptible to noble cause corruption or whether one has a more mature mind that is open to question things and weigh up multiple considerations in a rational manner. Tribal party loyalty is a trap that should be avoided from any particular “side” based on the record of David Cameron in the UK in terms of his “greenest government ever”.

    Great post as usual btw, Viscount Monckton.

  14. I think the difference between the Democrats and Republicans has more to do with who funds them. Prior to Barack Obama’s election the large number of his Green backers were pouring money into his campaign. However, he avoided discussion during the last election (presumably too toxic to the public) but he had to pay them back after the election. Hence, all the AGW nonsence from the White House. I am sure Hillary Clinton will get donations from Big Green and so we can expect the same AGW rhetoric from her.

    Democrats appear to be the Green Puppets dancing to the tune of Big Green!

  15. When someone like Dr Mears uses the words “denialist” or some such tag, they just do themselves a disservice and it takes away the appearance of detached objectivity that scientists are supposed to have, not to speak of a little dignity that scientists used to be known for. Well known climate scientists who support AGW constantly use these terms and it demeans the profession. If they want the public’s respect they need to pick up their game a little and stay out of the gutter. Otherwise they come across as just a bunch of cultists who will do anything for the cause. Several years ago I started to research this issue a little more and I was totally agnostic with little scientific knowledge. The very first thing that jumped out at me was how unprofessional the supposed professionals behaved. They never tried to persuade anyone with the science and data. It was use of the ad hominem that was the first thing our of their mouths. That signaled to me some deep seated uncertainties they were trying to mask and an inability to refute data with solid scientific findings. If they would have been taking the high road all these years, I would have been much more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and who knows what my views would have been. But instead, they blew it.

    • maccassar, you are not the first person to become sceptical because of the use of the D word. If climate sensitivity is shown to be on the low end of estimates then Mears et al will look foolish. They are already beginning to look foolish.

    • “They never tried to persuade anyone with the science and data. ”
      Because their flimsy science would convince no one.
      (Flimsy, maybe Flim-Flamsy)

    • “… they come across as just a bunch of cultists who will do anything for the cause…they blew it.”
      —————————————————-
      Yep, that about sums it up.
      See how easy posting is with good editing?

  16. Quote: “Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:”

    Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998
    http://4hiroshimas.com

    Skeptical Science can expect a note from Dr Mears (for a doctor he is) regarding cherry picking 1998?

    The climate quackery continues …

    • It was the warmest September on record, not the warmest month (according to the surface data sets anyway). The ‘warmest’ month is harder to pin down, because the data sets all use anomalies.

      The most anomalously warm month was Jan 2007 according to all the surface data sets. That was +0.54C warmer than the average January between 1981-2010 (HadCRUT4). In the satellite data, April 1998 was the the most anomalously warm month at +0.76 (RSS) on the same base period.

      To identify the absolute warmest month we’d need to know the absolute monthly values.

    • it isn’t the warmest month where I live. In fact July and August were much warmer.

      Unless you live smack dab on the equator, September will rarely be the warmest month.

  17. ” the world emitted 22 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

    In 2013, just 25 years later, 35 million tonnes of CO2 were emitted”
    You may want to change millions into billions.
    Probably Monckton intended to express contributions in thousands of tons and the “000” got lost in writing, happens.

  18. Thank you, Christopher. I enjoy reading your monthly updates.

    I, too, am not impressed with the huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. If you surveyed each party about other issues, you would not get such a huge gap.

    Even if you are totally neutral on this subject, you would have to conclude that something is very wrong.

  19. well there is some kind of cherry peaking of the start, one way to avoid this problem would be to plot global temperature instead of temperature anomaly…. ha ha ha….

    on the other hand , look at the simulation fitting actual data so wellwhen they knew it, but unable to get the shape of temperature anomaly afterwards..weird to me…

    the question is : is a trend over 20 years meaningful to prove models wrong….

    well may be not…then…why alarmist always talk of meteorological evenst as relevant ? why do they pretend that anybody can actually see gloabla warming at work?

  20. Leftists’ endemic logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) is the foundation upon which leftism is built.

    This logical fallacy permeates every policy, program and ideology of the Left. The Leftist acolytes willing surrender their freedom and property (usually other people’s property) to the state, because they wrongly assume the people in authority are the “experts” and willingly give them blind allegiance, regardless of the fact that leftist policies never work very well; or even make matters worse.

    The CAGW scam is the perfect example this fatal flaw of leftists….

    • time and time again history shows that the “experts” has a worse track record than the main in the street.

      experts are fantastic when you need someone to predict the past. they pretty much have that down to an art. it is the future that still trips them up.

  21. I think its billion tons of CO2 emission. Seems tropical trees can sink 2.5bt (2000 -2007). Difficult to tell just how many trees? This info came from Kew Gardens yesterday via BBC: (about 26 mins in)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04n695m

    There’s more to it than that I’m sure and thats the kind of thing missing in the system scare story.

  22. The fastest measured 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.

    Are you sure about this?

    The warming trend across Alaska (Fairbanks, Anchorage, Nome, and Barrow) between 1971 and 2001 was, reportedly, 4.5 degrees per century. Note the area of Alaska is more than 10 times that of the whole of England.

  23. @Bevan
    ..The analysis of satellite data Mr Monkton present are correct; however, he selects a single atmospheric data set, which measures the accumulation of heat in but a tiny part of the climate system. … global ocean heat content … has continued to rise.

    1 – We don’t have the capability of measuring ocean heat accurately – the purported rise is an estimate made by an activist scientist looking for places where heat may be hidden.

    2 – Global Warming theory is a theory about the ATMOSPHERE. The atmosphere has to heat up before it can heat the ocean. But we know the atmosphere ISN’T heating up – so whatever might be heating the ocean, it CAN’T be the atmosphere.

    3 – The ocean ‘excess heat’ is meant to be at great depths. Because we know that the shallower bits, which we can measure, have not heated excessively. Tell us, how can heat can get from the atmosphere to the deep sea without passing through the shallow sea?

    • 2 – Global Warming theory is a theory about the ATMOSPHERE. The atmosphere has to heat up before it can heat the ocean. But we know the atmosphere ISN’T heating up – so whatever might be heating the ocean, it CAN’T be the atmosphere.

      It’s not quite as simple as that. The atmosphere doesn’t heat the ocean directly anyway. However it can prevent the ocean from cooling, but there are lots of other things going on as well which determine the rate of heat loss from the ocean.

  24. In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.

    1999 – 2000 La Nina, anyone?

  25. @Gareth Phillips
    If temps really have not risen, why is September 2014 being viewed by skeptics and mainstreamers as the warmest month on record?

    Who ever said that temps have not risen? Of course temperatures have risen since the last Ice Age! NOONE disputes the general record showing that 1900 was pretty cool, it got hotter rapidly up till around 1950, it then dropped in the 1970s and rose again up to about 2000. It has now been flat for nearly 20 years.

    The question is “Why?”. These variations do NOT coincide with CO2 concentrations. Various excuses have been made for earlier variation, but there is no credible excuse for this long flat period during a considerable increase of CO2. The answer HAS to be that, in real world conditions, CO2 concentration does not drive global temperature as predicted by AGW hypothesis.

  26. It’s always amusing to read comments about the Greens/Left/ Democrats versions of the Völkischer Beobachter updated to appear as a modern edition of the Soviet Pravda.

    And these are typically meaningless questions. For example, the use of “serious” in a question is meant to sway public opinion compared to “crisis”n compared to “important”n compared to “trivial”n compared to .. A more enlightened question would be along the lines of “how much of your income are you willing to lose to combat “. Better yet, how about “to combat do you mind if you are forced to give up your smart phone and your heat in the winter and reduce your food by half and ?”.

    And just like Goebbel work, one must waste an enormous amount of time to counter them. One thing is clear, unless Antarctica moves away from the South Pole very, very soon, the next Ice Age will begin. No matter the CO2, no matter the satellites and no matter . A shame such nonsense as climate change is “serious”. Come to think of it, how about changing the NYT question to “Do you consider the upcoming Ice Age fatal to the human race?”. Great fun, this constructing leading questions?

  27. IPCC’s 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:

    I’m not normally one who defends the IPCC but I’m not sure this FAR statement is as bad as it’s been made out to be. The IPCC cites a temperature increase in the range of 0.7-1.5 by 2025. UAH currently records 0.4 deg warming since 1990. If, by any chance , there was a further 0.3 degrees of warming in the next decade or so. then I don’t really think we can class the IPCC prediction as a failure. We should also note that the IPCC (in 1990) recognised the uncertainties surrounding clouds and oceans. Indeed, it is likely that ocean oscillations are responsible for the present slowdown. However, sceptics need to be aware that, in the past, the cool phase of these oscillations has caused planet-wide cooling – not so this time.

    The IPCC predictions (or projections) are currently running ‘hot’ but not yet to the point where they can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt. Put it this way, they are looking a lot more likely to succeed than are the various predictions of cooling based on solar activity.

    The group that should be feeling most satisfied at present are the “lukewarmers”, i.e. those that predict warming of 1 to 1,5 degrees per CO2 doubling.

    • ‘However, sceptics need to be aware that, in the past, the cool phase of these oscillations has caused planet-wide cooling – not so this time. ‘~ john finn

      john, have you noticed the events of the past 8 years? Things appear to be getting colder all over the Earth. Record cold temps, record snows, later frosts, earlier frosts….

      • john, have you noticed the events of the past 8 years? Things appear to be getting colder all over the Earth. Record cold temps, record snows, later frosts, earlier frosts….

        No I haven’t noticed that but that might be because where I live we have a decent chance that 2014 will be our warmest year in more than 350 years.

        I would also question the records or more precisely the length of the records. Records will always occur at some location or other around the world (cold or hot) but ‘warm’ records are outnumbering ‘cold’ ones.

      • “‘warm’ records are outnumbering ‘cold’ ones.”
        John, when you state something that you intend to be taken as fact, please cite hard data to corroborate it.

    • The observed rate of warming, taken as the mean of the UAH and RSS datasets, is exactly half what was predicted by the IPCC in 1990. THe trend is wholly below the interval of projections made by the IPCC in that year. That is a serious failure, which gets inexorably worse by the month as the gap between prediction and reality widens.

      • The RSS record is at odds with the other main temperature datasets. I am sceptical that the RSS trend is accurate. More importantly, John Christy and Roy Spencer are also sceptical.

        THe trend is wholly below the interval of projections made by the IPCC in that year. That is a serious failure,

        We cannot judge it as a failure until 2025. We know that natural variation means that warming will not be monotonic. If, in 2025, total warming since 1990 is less than 0.7 deg that’s the time for the criticism but even then we would need to look at the complete picture. Let’s say we have 0.6 degrees warming in 2025 and 1 deg warming in 2040?

        The analogy of a stone being thrown from the edge of a cliff is a good one. We know the stone will probably reach the bottom, we just don’t know its exact path. As the stone falls there are times when it will hit rock and bounce back upwards but its general path will be downwards.

        Your IPCC extract includes this

        … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change.

        It is the prediction of the “the broad-scale features of climate change” in which the IPCC has substantial confidence. I think we’re a long way from concluding that this confidence is badly misplaced

      • John Finn:
        Here in the US, climate alarm is road kill on the election highway.
        The Greens are belly up and their embrace was the embrace of political death for hundreds of democratic candidates, nationwide.
        In short, nobody but the dull-witted believe the junk science.
        Choose any temperature index you wish and it will not show significant warming for this century. Go peddle your junk science and your alarms elsewhere.

    • Assuming by oceans you meant the PDO/AMO then it might help to look at the data surrounding the change in phase of the PDO.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.75/plot/rss/from:1996.75/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.75/to/trend

      This looks at the Grand Pause in two segments, before the phase change and after the phase change. As you can see the warming actually did continue until around 2005 and then cooling began. The trends are not all that different other than their directions. Also consider 2014 is a bit of a “warm” cherry pick given the ENSO+ conditions and the solar maximum.

  28. Parable of the Prophet

    Once upon a time in 1996 a prophet of doom had been preaching. Repent all ye evil consumers and stop pumping CO2 to the atmosphere! If ye don’t stop, ye will be toasted like that black bread in the toaster! The consumers ignored the prophet and continued pumping 80 million tons of CO2 every day. After 18 long years, they pumped 530 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. To their surprise, they did not turn into black bread as the prophet has been preaching all this time. They checked the most accurate temperature measurements available – the satellite data.

    Lo and behold there is no warming in the past 18 years! The baby (CO2) has been pushing with all his might for 18 years and the bulldozer (climate) has not moved a millimeter. What does the prophet do in the face of this huge embarrassment? The prophet proclaims to the crowd, in 24 hours the baby will turn into Superman and he will lift that bulldozer with one finger! The gullible crowd cheers wildly. Then they all kneel down and worship the prophet of doom.

    To impress the crowd, the prophet uses sophisticated models ran in supercomputers. Of course they conveniently forget to say the models have been proven wrong by observations. For all their neat tricks (including Mike’s trick to hide the decline), the prophet won the Nobel Peace Prize.

      • His goal of peace looks to me like Green Peace. Green Peace would apparently be achieved when the opposition has been killed and world population is thereby reduced to a level where hunting/gathering is practical.

  29. Bevan
    “I don’t quite understand, where have I mentioned Sea Surface Temperature (SST)? the plot posted above is the global ocean heat content from 0 to 2000 m depth.”
    Surely if the graph shows heat content from 0 m to whatever depth it is also dependent to some extent on SST?

  30. With minimal looking, I find the mass of the atmosphere to be 5.3×10^18 Kg. The mass of the oceans is 1.4×10^21 Kg. The ratio is 0.0038. The heat capacity of air is about 0.25 relative to water, so the relative heat capacity of the atmosphere relative to the oceans is 0.001 or 0.1%. Is that right? So if the atmosphere temperature is lowered by 5 deg this would be equivalent to raising the ocean temperature by 0.005 deg. How does one measure that? I understand the ocean is not well mixed, but still??

    • another way to look at it is that any rise in atmospheric temps due to CO2 is transitory. It will be eaten by the oceans, with only a miniscule change in ocean temps. it will take centuries to change the ocean temps to any significant degree. fossil fuel will be long exhausted by then, and the land masses of the earth buried under miles of ice.

  31. The poll should not be a surprise.
    The difference between Democrats and Republicans on climate change is simply a matter of who you believe and trust. Obama and Holdren have constantly trumpeted the climate change orthodoxy, so if you’re a Democrat, that’s pretty much the faith you sign up for.
    Republicans, by and large, don’t trust the president and so disbelieve the hype. Throw in a brutally cold 2013/2014 winter and a lack of evidence of a climate catastrophe and it’s not surprise Republicans don’t believe climate change is a serious problem.

  32. I was curious as to why quotation marks were placed around “Democrat” in this article when they do not appear to be used in the original reporting? I admit this is not quite as bad as splicing temperature estimates but it would seem to be an unnecessary edit.

    In addition, the graph shown at the beginning of this blog post apparently derives from the Twitter reporting by the NYTimes. http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/liveblog?post=343-exit-polls-partisan-divide-on-climate-change-4878&utm_source=item-permalink&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=election-2014
    As a side note, the percentages reported at this NYTimes link are slightly different, although the basic point remains the same (scroll to bottom of linked page): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

    The link in the original tweet takes you to a brief discussion:

    “Nationally, nearly six in 10 voters said climate change was a serious problem, and a broad majority of them (about seven in 10) favored Democratic candidates for the House. Among the four in 10 voters who said it was not a serious problem, an even larger majority (more than eight in 10 voters) supported Republican candidates.”

    Combining this explanatory discussion with the election outcome highlights, at least for me, the most important point. The key takeaway is not how different the two parties are but rather how irrelevant they have become. The contest today is over the unaffiliated voter since party loyalists’ voting patterns are largely predetermined.

  33. Details, details, details. All of the commentary here, and as always on this subject, emphasizes the huge schism that exists between the left and the right. The science is very interesting but the “70%” don’t care! A few decades of propaganda have solidified the beliefs of the two political sides of America, and much of the rest of the world. The recent election shows that people can be motivated to express their beliefs. The lack of global warming evidence is there to be seen. No global warming for 18 years! Those who have been brainwashed always respond with “yes, but…” And they always will! The only thing that binds this nation together now is financial considerations. If (or when!) the next big depression happens the split will become very evident. Totally ignoring the facts, Obama and the left will push hard in the next two years to entrench very odious and restrictive policies. Big business and the Republicans will go along. The beneficiaries of this are the greens and the oligarchs! The losers are the people, especially the “third world.” The Earth will however, prevail!

  34. ” all the taxes and fines and subsidies and profiteering,”

    You can disregard all charts, models, predictions, estimations and whatever else they are using these days. This one phrase says it all. This entire sad episode of recent history is based on the above with special emphasis on “profiteering”.

  35. @John Finn
    …I’m not normally one who defends the IPCC but I’m not sure this FAR statement is as bad as it’s been made out to be. The IPCC cites a temperature increase in the range of 0.7-1.5 by 2025. UAH currently records 0.4 deg warming since 1990. If, by any chance , there was a further 0.3 degrees of warming in the next decade or so. then I don’t really think we can class the IPCC prediction as a failure…..Indeed, it is likely that ocean oscillations are responsible for the present slowdown. However, sceptics need to be aware that, in the past, the cool phase of these oscillations has caused planet-wide cooling – not so this time….
    The group that should be feeling most satisfied at present are the “lukewarmers”, i.e. those that predict warming of 1 to 1,5 degrees per CO2 doubling.

    Hmm. I also would expect to examine the ‘best’ case to be made out for global warming, rather than the headlines which each side present to sway public opinion.

    It is well accepted that there must be interchange between ocean and atmosphere, and that there are going to be natural variations (which seem to be bigger than the effect we are trying to measure!). Given these variations (and the natural rise since the ice age, which no one seems to factor out!) I believe that the data can be made to support most positions without too much difficulty (though the extreme heating position is probably dead now).

    I am most convinced by looking for the Global Warming effect in the place where it should be easiest to measure – the troposphere. Looking at the messy ‘average global temperature’ data is not convincing for all sorts of reasons. But the troposphere should unambiguously show the single effect due to CO2.

    And it doesn’t. From that alone I conclude that there is no extra heat in the system to find.

  36. There is something I’ve always wanted to know about this. (Not the first time around.) How can a start-point that is determined mathematically by the extent of a flat trend be a cherrypick? Enquirin’ Minds want to know.

    Further comment: The alarmists are right insofar as a blip (as opposed to a step-change) is indeed going to prejudice your readings most if it comes at either end of the graph (in this case, 1998).

    However, 1997 is not from the peak, but from the base of the blip. That reduces the amount of prejudice. And you won’t be hearing about the immediately following, severe la Nina from 1999 – 2000, either. These two factors cancel out the statistical effect of the 1998 blip on trend.

    To further suggest this, the linear trend from 2001, thus excluding both 1998 El Nino and 1999-2000 La Nina, is, indeed, flat.

    • The argument is: There has been no change in 18+ years, so the start point depends on the claim that is being made. If the claim was that there has been no warming for 23 years then the claim would be in error. You are right to say this is not a cherry-pick, it is what it is.

    • It isn’t the start point that is the cherry pick, it is the interval. There have been many pauses (intervals) and the current pause is just one of many.

      The real problem is because the record is so short and sparse that every ‘interval’ is a cherry pick. The thirty year ‘Climate’ meme is just something someone pulled out of their … Like Pritchett said, it is cherries all the way down.

      • Thing is that 1950 is the base year, in terms of significance. And if anything, that’s a cherrypick, being just off a dead drop. There have been roughly the same number of positive and negative PDO years since then. But before too long, those negative PDO days will start to stack up.

      • The interval is the answer to a question, thus, being free floating to whatever the answer is, impossible to cherry pick. You can question the relevancy of the question, but not call it a cherry pick.

        Beyond this, you assert many pauses, really? since1979 of the satellites, how many 18 year pauses have we had? Just this one. Well known proponents of CAGW stated that a pause of 17 years indicated something wrong with the theory.

      • Another way to avoid accusations of cherry-picking would be to express the recent trends as starting from an “obvious” date, such as the start of the century (January 2001). If this is done for the datasets most usually followed in these discussions, we get the following results in deg C / decade

        UAH 0.062
        GISS 0.032
        Hadcrut4 0.017
        RSS -0.049

        On balance, they are warming slightly, but not enough to make any significant difference to life as we know it in the foreseeable future

    • Yes, and I repeat the chart from above that shows this quite clearly..

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.75/to/plot/rss/from:1997.75/to/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to/trend

      And, on top of that we have Santer et al (2001) that states:

      “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature.”

      So, according to climate models upon which this study is based, the 18 year Grand Pause is sufficient in length to understand “human effects”.

  37. I know nothing of the physics, geophysics, or chemistry regarding the discussion on climate change or climate sensitivity, (my PhD is in math and information theory). But I do have a very successful 30 year track record building predictive models for a number of Fortune 500 companies, (my top 3 clients have a combined revenue of 125 billion)… Every trend I see, in terms of temperature, arctic ice, weather anomaly, is looking more and more like a sine wave. Oh my! Could this all be cyclical??? I do work with more than a few people in the media business, they are always enthralled by pretty pictures. If I put a graph in front of them that shot a linear trend through non-linear data they would all nod approvingly at me alleged brilliance… enough said.

    • Mark
      Regardless of the trends, sines etc discussions, I have seen nothing to falsify a hypothesis that we are simply on our way back to approximate levels of the MWP. For my money much of all these discussions for the last 30 years have been way too short term. I doubt that any century or millennium has ever been exactly like any other century or millennium. Every year is another Lewis & Clark trek.

      • We pretty much agree, my implicit point is that the causality of CO2 just disappears if there is a cyclical pattern, very new phase is, (again, as much as I understand the physics and chemistry), is an entirely new regime

  38. …Every trend I see, in terms of temperature, arctic ice, weather anomaly, is looking more and more like a sine wave. Oh my! Could this all be cyclical???…

    It seems to me that, purely by logic, you can postulate that any repeating trend must approximate to either sine or saw-tooth. During the history of the Earth all variations which were non-cyclical must already have been encountered, and have already happened. So we don’t need to worry about them.

    Yes, it’s cyclic, and probably sine.

    • True, but they are all on a slight, but genuine warming incline. Half the warming from 1976-1998 was a result of postitve PDO phase. But we have crossed over to negative PDO, and there ain’t so much cooling. So there is that to consider, too. So I think there is a mild, but constant thumb under the scale at work, here. Fortunately, diminishing returns (and continuing technology) are on our side.

      • But if that’s true it becomes a causal quagmire, you would need an unequivocal understanding of the long-term trend, (over centuries), to have causal certainty about the short-term trends. I’ve built tons of models that are great, tactically, for 24-36 months out, and then they’re toast, (no pun intended), but provide absolutely no long-term strategic guidance. I’ve also been working on models that are focused on the long-term, but those are a constant work-in-progress. The interesting thing about the long-term models isn’t so much their predictive efficacy as it is the fact that every time we mess with one we learn something. The AGW people don’t seem to be there yet. They’re very immature in their thinking.

        Anyway, if there is a human contribution, (I’d be the last to argue that there is not, you can’t just dump crap into the world and expect everything to be benign), it is confounded by long-term events. It follows that the selections about the best continuing technology would be difficult, at best, at a crap-shoot, at worst.

      • Evan Jones, are you unaware of the studies which show a reduction in cloud albedo since the eighties? Here is your warming.

      • The other half was man-made, alright, ie from solely upward “adjustments” to actual observations, which torture of data continues.

    • So are Republicans, Libertarians, and even Aliens, (from other planets, not from foreign countries). That’s why it’s sad that a lot of this has turned into a shouting match. I honestly believe we have regressed, socially, from the days when the Gipper and Tip agreed “Let’s just get this done.”

      • Unquestionably the blame is on those who feed junk science into a propaganda mill for the purpose of generating alarm. Please do not pretend that both sides share the blame equally. That is simply untrue.

  39. Starting at the “Big Bang” one could say the universe is cooling, therefore everything will cool.

  40. Fine work Lord M.
    Given the total humiliation being piled upon alarmists by this data it’s also unintentionally hilarious too.

  41. CMofB, you didn’t mention the new Hadcrut adjustments working their magic by attenuating the dreaded ‘pause’. They have added in an Arctic amplifiication amount to adjust the latter years upwards and ruin the lovely plateau. A question: Shouldn’t they also jack up temperatures from 1990s because the Arctic was ‘under represented’ then, too. That would simply transpose the record upwards en bloc. Also, shouldn’t they also had a big pad of heat for what must have been pretty serious Arctic amp in the 1930s-40s warm period. Maybe we haven’t warmed?

    • (This was posted 2 days ago on my article, but applies here.)
      There are several things to consider here. RSS shows that the region from 60 to 82.5 N is warming at the rate of 0.323 K/decade according to the sea ice page. If we assume a constant lapse rate, then the polar surface would warm just as fast.
      Now let us suppose that 40% of the Arctic was covered in 1998 and the same 40% was covered in 2014. If an additional 20% of area was found for 1998 in 2014, and if an additional 20% of area was used in 2014, then the added area would presumably increase the warming rate of this area by 0.323 K/decade which would cause a larger slope for the whole earth.
      But suppose that an additional 20% was found for 1998, but an additional 50% was found for 2014, then the warming for the Arctic region would be much larger than 0.323 K/decade, so the global slope would also be larger. If that is the case, and if 2014 beats 1998, I would consider that to be like comparing apples and oranges.
      Note that there is no way that RSS will beat 1998 in 2014 and this is comparing apples to apples.
      That is how I see it anyway.
      If we could go back to the 1920s and 1930s and find lots of thermometer readings, who knows what we may find? Especially if the Arctic was much warmer then. See the 2 postings at:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/05/hadcrut4-adjustments-discovering-missing-data-or-reinterpreting-existing-data-now-includes-september-data/#comment-1781241

    • I’ll second that,Bob. In my vision of a better future, Lord Monckton and the other brave skeptics who went public and woke me from my “save the planet” hypnosis should be regarded as folk heroes, while the dogma and tactics of McCarthyism should be renamed Gore-Mannism. Their cinematic contribution could understandably be a laughable, popular cult film, and continue making them rich (darn it).

  42. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
    I was not surprised by the NYT exit poll you show, just sad.
    But I think the ongoing El Niño is so weak that most probably the temperature hiatus will continue for another year.
    Then, who knows? Our prediction capacity shrinks to nothing.
    Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI):

    From ESRL-PSD: Multivariate ENSO Index (November 5 ’14, Klaus Wolter, NOAA), at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    • The upward warming spike this year and first half of next will likely be more than offset by cooling in the 2016-2018 period.

  43. I would like to know which of the IPCC models most closely correlate with the RMS/MSU/AMSU data? Same question for IPCC models and RSS data. It appears to me that a few models might correlate fairly well, but impossible to confirm from Dr. Mears’ chart presented here. Of those models (if any) that correlate the best (no expectations here), what are their climate sensitivity assumptions?

  44. From the Met Office in 2007. It’s a laughing stock.

    Abstract – 10 August 2007
    Doug M. Smith et al
    Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
    Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.
    Author Affiliations
    Met office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Ex1 3PB, UK.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/796

  45. Met Office successes continue unabated.

    BBC – 27 January 2014
    Paul Hudson
    Met Office global forecasts too warm in 13 of last 14 years
    …It means that so far this century, of 14 yearly headline predictions made by the Met Office Hadley centre, 13 have been too warm.

    It’s worth stressing that all the incorrect predictions are within the stated margin of error, but having said that, they have all been on the warm side and none have been too cold….

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Met-Office-global-forecasts-too-warm-in-13-of-last-14-years

    • 97 million reasons tell us that accuracy is not important for the MET , so why bother in the first place as long as you get the ‘right result ‘ you do not need to worry about its being the factual correct.

  46. Mod: I left a brief comment at around 6:50 PST on this article. Same with the part 2 article.

    [Found & restored. ~mod.]

  47. It’s worth stressing that all the incorrect predictions are within the stated margin of error, but having said that, they have all been on the warm side and none have been too cold…
    ==================
    the odds that this is simply due to chance error are vanishingly small. it points to systematic error. the Met Office has an uncorrected bug in their computer software.

    buying a faster machine will not correct the bug. it will simply make the bug execute faster.

  48. Dr Mears writes:

    “The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem “with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. ”

    Actual the problem is although the ‘physics ‘ may be know in theory what that means in reality is not . For the the planet is nothing like gilling a bell jar with CO2 in action , and so the models fail because the cause and effect relationships is poorly understood no matter how much it is claimed to be ‘settled science’, hence the need for 40 plus reasons for the ‘missing heat ‘ in the first place.

  49. Dr Mears writes:

    “My view is that the subduction of heat into the ocean is very likely a significant part of the explanation for the model/observation discrepancies.”

    And the oceans are now the hottest since records began in 1880! So much for a pause in Global warming hey!

  50. The start of this post should be changed from millions of tonnes of co2 emissions to billions of tonnes. Why is such a simple mistake not changed in the first hour? Incredible.

      • And your point is DUH? When I last looked a billion was one thousand million or haven’t you woken up yet? Sort of important don’t you think? Or not? And so easily fixed.

      • Can’t believe I’m defending DirkH but he is so obviously right.

        Millions is not exaggerating from billions – it is understating. There is no deception here.

        This is a volunteer website. Correcting irrelevant inaccuracies is not worth the effort. It is inaccurate – not wrong or misleading.
        Neville, what exactly is your concern?

      • M Courtney I only write simple English so I don’t know how to make this any easier. If it doesn’t matter to you if you’re out by a factor of 1,000 times I think I’ll just give up.
        These simply mistakes are usually corrected quickly with little fuss, so why is it not the case here? Simple mistake and simple correction.
        Jo Nova made a similar mistake a couple of days ago quoting billions $ when it should have been millions $. This was corrected quickly without any fuss.

      • You have a sign error. One is significant, the other is not.
        Remember Dickens in David Copperfield:

        Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

        As I said…No! Let me clarify more simplistically.
        Over-estimation hits a point of pain when the inaccuracy is discovered.
        Under-estimation is inefficient and inaccurate but not immediately flawed.

        Ideally, the accuracy would be assured either way.
        But with volunteers you have to take what you get and avoid causing pain.
        This avoids causing pain
        DirkH is right, This time

    • I agree with you. The mistake is of no consequence, with respect to understanding the post, but it should be corrected, with an acknowledgment of your finding it.

  51. Despite the NY Times reporting a sharp difference by party on the seriousness or not of global warming, the electorate said the top issues for them were:
    The economy 45%
    Health care 25%
    Illegal immigration 14%
    Foreign policy 13%

    Since global warming is not a top issue, it is unclear how much of a driver it was in the election. A little bit like unclarity about CO2 as a driver of climate.

  52. You repeatedly concede that the temperature continues to rise at “half” the rate that some other guys predicted. Yet you conflate and obfuscate. Some places you claim zero, other times you claim less. The trend is still upward. So the question is: what’s your interest in this? How does it affect you personally, financially, or not?

    • Sorry but GAT is not rising at all for 13 years in the mean of the disparate global data sets. Billions going into costly wind energy and solar raise the cost of every product on earth, and billions going into alarmist studies take from every tax payer, and threats of and implementation of different cap and trade schemes cost more billions. All of this harms the poor the most and takes resources from real problems. Also, as C.M. points out, despite all of the above, CO2 emissions do and will continue to rise.

  53. Reblogged this on US Issues and commented:
    Climate Models are crap! For example, they didn’t forecast any chance of a zero global temperature rise during the last 18 years 1 month, which has occurred. Read the analysis below.

  54. I have a problem with how you draw the temperature trends. The super El Nino of 1998 divides the satellite temperature graph in two and physical conditions change because of its influence. First, the segment from 1979 to the beginning of the super El Nino in early 1997 is a very normal ENSO oscillation, consisting of five El Nino peaks with La Nina valleys in between. The global mean temperature for such an ENSO segment is defined by the halfway points between the El Nino peaks and their neighboring La Nina valleys. Mark them all with dots. Next draw a trend line through these dots. It will be a horizontal straight line, indicating that this 18 year temperature segment was just like the current hiatus/pause is. You do not see this in ground-based temperature curves because the temperature “guardians” have decided to give it a fake upward slope in the eighties and nineties to create a “late twentieth century” warming. This continues into the twenty-first century and becomes their basis for calling the hiatus just “slow warming” instead of a complete standstill. This is easy to see because raising the right end of the curve makes the 2010 El Nino taller than the 1998 super El Nino, which is absurd. Both RSS and UAH are free of this fakery. The super El Nino itself is not a part of the ENSO oscillation but incorporates a large amount of warm water from an extraneous source. It is a once a century happening and has no connection with the ENSO or with global warming. The huge amount of extra warm water it brought did have a global influence, however, because as soon as the super El Nino had subsided there was a step warming in 1999. It was short one – only 3 years – and was not a greenhouse warming. But in those three years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. For reasons unknown global temperature then stabilized at that high level and remained the same during the rest of the century. If it were a normal El Nino peak it would have gone down again. The warm platform established was constant for the next seven years and then temperature suddenly dropped by 0.5 degrees. That turned out to be nothing more exotic than the 2008 La Nina which signified restart of ENSOI that the super El Nino had interrupted. Today we are ready for another El Nino peak but things look muddled and another period of uncertain warming like at the start of the century seems a possibility. As to your preference for RSS – I prefer UAH. That is because in the middle of this temperature segment RSS decided to change their procedures and the two satellite data sets started to slowly diverge. As a result, RSS today shows cooling where UAH shows steady temperatures. I am inclined tho think that there is no cooling and that is what UAH shows.

    • I have much sympathy with Arno Arrak’s comment. The Singer Event from 1993-1998 is of course startling when compared with the total absence of warming either side of it. That is surely not the profile of an atmosphere slowly being warmed by CO2. However, I have decided that the simplest and clearest method is to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS dataset for the longest period backward from the present – currently a whisker under 18 years 2 months.

      I prefer RSS because it alone correctly represents the startling magnitude of the Great el Nino of 1998, which, unlike any of the others in the decade and a half either side of it, caused widespread coral bleaching. Also, UAH is about to undertake a major revision to its dataset which – if my inside information is correct – will bring it much more closely into line with RSS, marking a significant departure from the endlessly upward-revised terrestrial datasets.

      Before the three terrestrial datasets recently all upped their recent-warming rates, their mean and the mean of the two satellite datasets showed exactly the same number of months without global warming – about 13 years 4 months. Then the revisions began. The terrestrial datasets now show only 13 years without global warming.

      So I shall continue to publish RSS trends for the time being, but I shall also continue my six-monthly updates of all five principal global-temperature datasets.

      • It would take political power for that, and now a climate realist is heading the US climate committee.

      • Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: I have much sympathy with Arno Arrak’s comment. The Singer Event from 1993-1998 is of course startling when compared with the total absence of warming either side of it. That is surely not the profile of an atmosphere slowly being warmed by CO2. However, I have decided that the simplest and clearest method is to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS dataset for the longest period backward from the present – currently a whisker under 18 years 2 months.

        I am sympathetic to you both. The literature on dynamical systems has many examples of systems in which something accumulates (or is input) steadily, maybe linearly, but the measured outputs appear as steps. Without more complete knowledge of the climate system, one can not tell whether the step-wise appearance of the temperature mean or the regression line is a more appropriate summary of the “trajectory” of the system; or which is a sounder basis for forming an expectation about the future. The “steady input” in this case could be extra radiation from CO2; the something accumulating could be ocean heat content. I usually come down on the side that “there is not sufficient evidence for a conclusion with much confidence”. The value of computing and displaying the regression line is that it shows that, even from the IPCC point of view, IPCC has overestimated the effect that it believes is there.

    • arnoarrak,
      You write:
      The super El Nino itself is not a part of the ENSO oscillation but incorporates a large amount of warm water from an extraneous source. It is a once a century happening and has no connection with the ENSO or with global warming.

      I am curious as to where the warm water came from and how it got there – the “extraneous source.” Usually the warm water of an El Niño is thought to have been generated in the equatorial/tropical Pacific and has a residency in the Western Pacific – The WP warm pool. Are you saying this is not the case for this one? Are you saying you don’t know? Or perhaps you know but are not saying?

      • John F. Hultquist: I am curious as to where the warm water came from and how it got there – the “extraneous source.”

        You and me both. And how does he know that it is a [once per century event] that can not recur next year, or in 2025 or 2035 to put the hypothetical CO2-induced warming back on track? In other posts here and elsewhere I have written that I don’t believe in much future warming, but for statements like that I’d appreciate more details.

    • GregK – did you even read this article? The authors specifically point out how anthropogenic warming has changed the trend.

      “the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called “hockey stick” on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.”

  55. This might make it clearer. We have had a little more than 15 years since the end of that El Nino so I looked at the 7.5 year moving means.

    The first 90 months of RSS data shows a mean of -0.948°C going up to 0.008°C in the last 90 months before 1997. That is a rise of 0.92°C / decade. A OLS fit from 1979 to 1997 give 0.07°C/decade but to 1999.75, it is 0.15°C/decade. It sort of highlights the problem with using OLS when the monthly data varies so much.

    The first 90 months of RSS data after 1999.75 have a mean of 0.248%deg;C going down to 0.216°C or a rate of warming of -0.02°C/decade. OLS fit gives 0.00°C /decade.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999.75/mean:90/plot/rss/to:1997/mean:90

  56. Eighteen years without any significant warming, just politics and hyperbole. Pity the moneys spent on AGW weren’t spent on something useful for humanity. Thanks Viscount Monkton for your recent analysis of the trends.

  57. I think i have seen it all now.

    Someone comparing SkS against Bill Illis.

    LOL!! Thats just too funny.

    Cook and Nuttercelli are not even in the same galaxy as Bill Illis.

    Try to pay attention Bevan, SkS is a propaganda machine.

    Being a cartoonist though do we expect anything else?

  58. Listen to anthonyvioli. There is really no comparison; SkS is a thoroughly dishonest propaganda blog run by a cartoonist who likes to dress up as a neo-Nazi. If you think SkS has any credibility at all, simply look into their claims that “97%” of all scientists believe that human emissions are the cause of most global warming.

    If you want to be taken seriousl, link to serious authorities. SkS has no credibility whatever, and people who link to them run the risk of being mocked by readers who know better.

    There are good links you can use. Don’t denigrate your good name by associating with neo-Nazis.

  59. Inhofe is a step in the right direction, :), but, on the major issues, there is not enough difference between the two parties. Both are owned by big money. This post, with great & amusing graphics, is instructive :
    globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/crony-capitalism-tribute-mafia-dons-vs.html

  60. 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.”

    Waning: Long, somewhat disorganized rant follows, but, it is interesting.

    This is the last paragraph in this article. Read it. Because their models agree with each other, that means the models are right.

    Is this what passes for rigorous scientific reasoning in the climate sciences today?

    And about those models. You can’t model what you don’t know. Reading “The West Without Water”, a book by two environmental extremists masquerading as scientists, they note that the PDO was not identified until the late 1990’s, by fisheries scientists. Climatology is a very young science. There is nothing “settled” about. According to this web page,

    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

    the cause of the PDO is unknown. The PDO was discovered by a PhD candidate (Dr. Hare) and his advisor looking into salmon harvests in the North West. You know, real world, grubby data. A practical problem. Then, some climatologists ran with the ball. This website refers to computer models of the PDO, which are “not skillful.”

    Let’s face it, it is so much more fun to sit in a lab and make computer models and pretty graphs than go out and interact with the real world, which is very, very messy, often unpredictable, and unrewarding (no publication.)

    Realize that if such variation in salmon harvests were discovered today, such variability would be simply attributed to man-made climate change and there would be calls for carbon taxes and/or a ban on fishing.

    Of interest, if you read the abstract for Hare’s paper in 1994, available here,

    http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2419.1994.tb00105.x?r3_referer=wol&show_checkout=1

    you will note the authors spend most of their abstract defending historical research as a way of advancing climatology. I guess that was a radical idea in 1994. After all, just dismiss history and you are free to make any predictions that strike your fancy, and call every unusual event signs of the coming apocalypse.

    It’s like H. Lamb never existed. Very Orwellian.

    Here is the webpage of Dr. Hare. He is not a climatologist. He is a fisheries expert.

    http://www.spc.int/fame/en/contacts/46-contacts-scicofish-project/24-steven-hare-steven-hare

    He made one of the fundamental discoveries about climatology, yet he didn’t remain in academia. He did it by analyzing data, not doing computer models. My guess is a data driven guy couldn’t find a place in academia in climatology. It would be interesting to hear him talk about his career.

  61. Ocean temperatures alone (be they absolute or anomalous) provide no evidence of source. One must study currents and winds to gain knowledge of that aspect of ocean warming. One must also study visible and IR penetration based on zenith angle (solar energy engineers know this forwards and backwards). It is reasonable to say that a significant part of ocean warmth outside the equatorial band is brought there from other places. And that the equatorial band is warmed to a greater or lesser degree by atmospheric processes letting in or keeping out the full measure of solar irradiance. It’s surface is also warmed or cooled by processes that happen in-situ through Westerly wind-driven Kelvin waves, Easterly churned up mixing, or windless layering. From there sloshing and currents transport this water to points North and South of the equator.

    Unfortunately, these processes, hidden from plain view, lead some to think it was humans what dun it. The equatorial oceanic band is huge and serves as the main deep absorber of direct solar heat. If you think this natural deep heating cannot be transported to other regions and spread itself out on the surface to belch that heat out over land, you need to get out of kindergarten global warming class. Why? Because the tiny, tiny addition to natural downwelling longwave infrared radiation sourced from just the anthropogenic CO2 molecules in the atmosphere don’t have the cajoles to do that. Not even close and it is laughable to think otherwise.

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/research/po/currents/index.php

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/research/po/currents/index.php

    http://www.applet-magic.com/insolation.htm

    http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~cronin/Solar/References/Shade%20effects/sdarticle%20(18).pdf

  62. “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.”

    The confidence in the models is supported by the claim that they understand what differences exist between the projections of different models. The “nevertheless” disparages the disparity between model output and actual climate measurements. What a perversion that is.

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, thanks again.

  63. This is a simple lie he is unable to understand the graph. The graphs indicate a change, as long as the graph is above the 0 line it indicates that there is warming occuring, the real way to measure the amount using this is to take the area of the segments above the zero and subtract it by the segments below the zero, its simple calculus that I learned in high school that a professional refused to do. To put it into real world terms what we have is a graph of acceleration not velocity, whenever acceleration is negative velocity is not negative it is only decreasing.

    • Also the graph also rarely ever goes below the actual true zero line, and the blue line for mean change indicates a change of .2 C

      • Mr Moody misunderstands the method of least-squares linear regression, which determines the y-intercept and slope of that straight line whose position minimizes the sum of the squares of the residuals (the distances between the measured data points and the trend line). There is no need to determine the area under or above the spline-curve of the data – indeed, that might produce bizarre results.

        He has also misunderstood the difference between the zero anomaly and the trend-line. The zero anomaly is the value of a baseline period (approximately 1961-1990 from memory, but it is 3 am here in Oz and I’m too tired to look it up). The somewhat higher anomaly value along the no-slope trend-line is an indication that the weather is a trivial amount warmer than it was during the baseline period; but the fact that the trend-line is above the zero mark does not in any way detract from the fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

  64. Hi,
    Just wanted to share with a couple of nice things I’ve found, please take a look

    Thanks for your consideration, gerjaison

Comments are closed.