The Great Pause lengthens again

Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 3 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS [1] temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 2 months to 18 years 3 months.

clip_image002

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months since October 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 3 months, or 219 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

As the Pope unwisely prepares to abandon forever the political neutrality that his office enjoins upon him, and to put his signature to a climate-Communist encyclical largely drafted by the radical Prefect of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Mgr. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Almighty continues to display a sense of humor.

We are now less than a year away the Paris world-government conference. Yet the global warming that the IPCC had so confidently but misguidedly predicted 25 years ago has stopped altogether.

clip_image004

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to November 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 [1] and UAH [2] 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. 2).

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 approaching 70 mutually incompatible and 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, and is demonstrated in a major peer-reviewed paper published this month in the Orient’s leading science journal.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

+++clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to November 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. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

Key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 219 months from October 1996 to December 2014 – more than half the 432-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 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 November 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 3 months.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

 

 

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the 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.

But is the RSS satellite dataset “cherry-picked”? No. There are good reasons to consider it the best of the five principal global-temperature datasets. The indefatigable “Steven Goddard” demonstrated in the autumn of 2014 that the RSS dataset – at least as far as the Historical Climate Network is concerned – shows less warm bias than the GISS [3] or UAH [2] records. The UAH record is shortly to be revised to reduce its warm bias and bring it closer to conformity with RSS.

clip_image008

Figure 4. Warm biases in temperature. RSS shows less bias than the UAH or GISS records. UAH, in its forthcoming Version 6.0, will be taking steps to reduce the warm bias in its global-temperature reporting.

Steven Goddard writes: “The graph compares UAH, RSS and GISS US temperatures with the actual measured US HCN stations. UAH and GISS both have a huge warming bias, while RSS is close to the measured daily temperature data. The small difference between RSS and HCN is probably because my HCN calculations are not gridded. My conclusion is that RSS is the only credible data set, and all the others have a spurious warming bias.”

Also, the RSS data show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that RSS is better able to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out than other datasets.

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 RSS graph (Fig. 1) 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. 5:

clip_image010

Figure 5. 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.

Is the ocean warming?

One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date.

The ocean “missing heat” theory is chiefly advocated by a single group in the United States. Meehl, Arblaster, Fasullo, Hu and Trenberth [7] say, “Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La Niña-like conditions,” while Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källen [8] say, “In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced,” and Trenberth & Fasullo [2013], repeated in Trenberth, Fasullo & Balmaseda [9], say, “An inventory of energy storage changes shows that over 90% of the imbalance is manifested as a rise in ocean heat content (OHC). … Global warming has not stopped: it is merely manifested in different ways.”

The U.S. group is supported by a group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences [10]: “A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing. The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. … Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.” In [11] the academicians speculate that at some future date the hiatus may change its sign, leading to a further episode of perhaps accelerated global warming.

Yet to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions that are relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean. Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.

Even if heat is reaching the benthic strata without warming the near-surface strata on the way, the transient near-surface response is rather insensitive to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. For this reason, resolving ocean thermodynamics and circulation dynamics is not a prerequisite to the empirical study of climate sensitivity by way of our simple model. If the “deep heat” explanation for the hiatus in global warming is correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), then the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has.

Since the complex models have failed in this respect, and since there are insufficient deep-ocean observations to provide reliable quantitative evidence of the putative heat accumulation below 2000 m, still less to determine the mechanism of the imagined heat transfer, still less again to apportion duly the respective contributions of anthropogenic, solar and subsea volcanic influences on the benthic heat accumulation, it is surely unreasonable for our simple model to be expected to do what the complex models have self-evidently failed to do – and what cannot be done by any model, simple or complex, unless and until measurements of far higher resolution than is now to hand become available at all points of the oceanic column. For instance, the 3500 automated Argo bathythermograph buoys have a resolution equivalent to taking a single temperature and salinity profile in Lake Superior less than once a year: and before Argo came onstream in the middle of the last decade the resolution of oceanic temperature measurements was considerably poorer even than that, especially in the abyssal strata.

The mean depth of the global ocean is 3700 m. As recently observed in [11], implicitly questioning the U.S. group’s assertions in [7-9], the resolution of samples at various depths and the length of the record are both insufficient either to permit reliable measurement of ocean heat content or to permit monitoring of oceanic radiative fluxes:

“Some basic elements of the sampling problem are compiled in Table 2. About 52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m and about 18% below 3600 m. By defining a volume as having been ‘probed’ if at least one CTD station existed within a roughly 60 x 60 km2 box in the interval 1992-2011 … [a]bout 1/3 (11% of total volume) of water below 2000 m was sampled … Of the [region] lying below 3600 m, about 17% was measured. … [M]any papers assume no significant changes take place in the deep ocean over the historical period … The history of exploration suggests, however, that blank places on the map have either been assumed to be without any interesting features and dropped from further discussion, or at the other extreme, filled with ‘dragons’ invoked to explain strange reports [in G. de Jode, 1578, Speculum Orbis Terrarum, Antwerp]. …

“[R]ecently, [60] offered estimates of abyssal changes with claimed accuracies of order of 0.01 W/m2 (0.0004°C temperature change equivalent over 20 years) below 700 m. If that accuracy has in fact been obtained, the sparse coverage, perhaps extended to the scope of WOCE hydrographic survey, repeated every few decades, would be sufficient.”

Furthermore, almost all current analyses of ocean heat content and budget lack an accurate accounting of spatial, temporal and other systematic errors and uncertainties such as those identified in recent works by a group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences [12]:

“In this study, a new source of uncertainties in calculating OHC due to the insufficiency of vertical resolution in historical ocean subsurface temperature profile observations was diagnosed. This error was examined by sampling a high-vertical-resolution climatological ocean according to the depth intervals of in situ subsurface observations, and then the error was defined as the difference between the OHC calculated by subsampled profiles and the OHC of the climatological ocean. The obtained resolution-induced error appeared to be cold in the upper 100 m (with a peak of approximately −0.1°C), warm within 100–700 m (with a peak of ~0.1°C near 180 m), and warm when averaged over 0–700-m depths (with a global average of ~0.01°–0.025°C, ~1–2.5 × 1022 J). Geographically, it showed a warm bias within 30°S–30°N and a cold bias at higher latitudes in both hemispheres, the sign of which depended on the concave or convex shape of the vertical temperature profiles. Finally, the authors recommend maintaining an unbiased observation system in the future: a minimal vertical depth bin of 5% of the depth was needed to reduce the vertical-resolution-induced bias to less than 0.005°C on global average (equal to Argo accuracy).”

Again [13]:

“… a new correction scheme for historical XBT data is proposed for nine independent probe-type groups. The scheme includes corrections for both temperature and depth records, which are all variable with calendar year, water temperature, and probe type. The results confirm those found in previous studies: a slowing in fall rate during the 1970s and 2000s and the large pure thermal biases during 1970–85. The performance of nine different correction schemes is compared. After the proposed corrections are applied to the XBT data in the WOD09 dataset, global ocean heat content from 1967 to 2010 is reestimated.”

A forthcoming paper [14], after properly accounting for some of the sampling biases and instrumental errors and uncertainties in the ocean heat content data (i.e., applying the new global ocean temperature dataset from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics), describes a vertical profile of ocean temperature change from 2004-2013, reporting a warming hiatus above 100 m depth and from 300-700 m. The two layers that show warming are 100-300 m and 700-1500 m. These warming strata show their own distinctive horizontal spatial patterns when compared to the non-warming stratum at 300-700 meters. This observational fact leads to the following conclusion:

“It is still unclear how the heat is transferring to the deeper ocean.”

Furthermore, the suggestion that heat accumulation in the deep ocean explains why there has been no global warming at all for up to 18 years is far from generally accepted in the scientific literature. A remarkable variety of competing and often mutually exclusive explanations for the hiatus in global warming, chiefly involving near-surface phenomena, are offered in recent papers in the reviewed journals of climate science.

In the literature, the cause of the hiatus in global warming is variously attributed to (1) coverage-induced cool bias in recent years [15], rebutted by [16] and, with respect to Arctic coverage, by [17]; (2) anthropogenic aerosols from coal-burning [18], rebutted by [19-20]; (3) decline in the warming caused by black-carbon absorption [20]; (4) emission of aerosol particulates by volcanic eruptions [21], rebutted by [22]; (5) reduced solar activity [23]; (6) effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in controlling emissions of chlorofluorocarbons [24]; (7) a lower-than-predicted increase in methane concentration [24]; (8) a decrease in stratospheric water vapor concentration [25]; (9) strengthened Pacific trade winds [26] (previously, [27] had attributed weaker Pacific trade winds to anthropogenic global warming); (10) stadium waves in tropical Pacific circulation [28]; (11) coincidence [29]; (12) aerosol particulates from pine-trees [30]; (13) natural variability [31-32]; (14) cooler night-time temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere [33]; (15) predictions by those models that allowed for the possibility of a pause in global warming [34-35]; (16) the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [36-38]; (17) the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation [39]; (18) global dimming following the global brightening of 1983-2001 [40]; (19) relative frequencies of distinct el Niño types [41]; (20) surface cooling in the equatorial Pacific [42]; (21) Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming [43]; (22) a combination of factors, including ENSO variability, solar decline and stratospheric aerosols [44]; (23) underestimated anthropogenic aerosol forcing [45]; (24) a new form of multidecadal variability distinct from but related to the ocean oscillations [46]; and (25) failure to initialize most models in order to conform with observation, particularly of oceanic conditions [47].

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication the temperature change is converted into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem larger. Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change is highly revealing. It shows how little change has really been measured. The increase in ocean heat content over the 94 ARGO months September 2005 to June 2013 was 10 x 1022 J = 100 ZJ (Fig. 6).

clip_image011

Figure 6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, from NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT.

Conversion: 650 million km3 x 4 MJ per tonne per Kelvin: each cubic meter is 1.033 tonnes. Then:

100 ZJ increase in ohc 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J

To raise 650,000,000,000,000,000 m3

x 1.033 te m–3 671,450,000,000,000,000 te

x 4,000,000 J te 2,685,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 J per Kelvin

Then 100,000 / 2,685,800 = 0.037233 K in 94 months is equivalent to 0.0475 K per decade. Accordingly, even on the quite extreme NODC ocean heat content record, the change in mean ocean temperature in the upper 2000 m in recent decades has been less than 0.5 K per century equivalent.

References

1. RSS (2014) Satellite-derived monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomaly dataset: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt. Accessed 1 July 2014

2. UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) (2014) Satellite MSU monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt. Accessed 1 July 2014

3. NCDC, 2014, National Climatic Data Center monthly global mean land and ocean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat. Accessed 1 July 2014

4. Morice, CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner N, Jones PD (2012) Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys Res 117:D08101. doi:10.1029/2011JD017187

5. GISS, 2014, Goddard Institute for Space Studies monthly global mean land and sea surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2014, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt. Accessed 1 July 2014

6. McKitrick RR (2014) HAC-robust measurement of the duration of a trendless subsample in a global climate time series. Open J Stat 4:527-535

7. Meehl GA, Arblaster JM, Fasullo JT et al (2011) Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nat Clim Change 1: 360–364

8. Balmaseda MA, Trenberth KE, Källen E (2013) Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. Geophys Res Lett 40:175401759

9. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Balmaseda MA (2014) Earth’s energy imbalance. J Clim 27:3129-3144

10. Chen X, Tung KK (2014) Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration. Science 345: 897–903

11. Wunsch C, Heimbach P (2014) Bidecadal thermal changes in the abyssal ocean. J Phys Oceanol 44: 2013–2030

12. Cheng L, Zhu J (2014) Uncertainties of the ocean heat content estimation induced by insufficient vertical resolution of historical ocean subsurface observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1383–1396

13. Cheng L, Zhu J, Cowley R et al (2014a) Time, probe type, and temperature variable bias corrections to historical expendable bathythermograph observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1793–1825

14. Cheng L, Zheng F, Zhu J (2014b) Distinctive ocean interior changes during the recent climate hiatus. Geophys Res Lett submitted

15. Cowtan K, Way RG (2014) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Quart J R Meteot Soc 140: 1934-1944

16. Fyfe JC, Gillet NP, Zwiers FW (2013) Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nat Clim Change 3: 767-769

17. Chung CE, Cha H, Vilma T et al (2013) On the possibilities to use atmospheric reanalyses to evaluate the warming structure of the Arctic. Atmos Chem Phys 13: 11209-11219

18. Kaufmann RK, Kauppi H, Stock JH (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 11790-11793

19. Kühn T, Partanen A-I, Laakso A et al(2014) Climate impacts of changing aerosol emissions since 1996. Geophys ResLett 41: 4711-4718

20. Neely RR, Toon OB, Solomon S et al (2013) Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol. Geophys Res Lett 40. doi: 10.1002/grl.50263

21. Santer BD, Bonfils C, Painter JF et al (2014) Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat Geosci 7:185-189

22. Haywood J, Jones A, Jones GS (2014) The impact of volcanic eruptions in the period 2000-2013 on global mean temperature trends evaluated in the HadGEM2-ES climate model. Atmos Sci Lett 15: 92-96

23. Stauning P (2014) Reduced solar activity disguises global temperature rise, Atmos Clim Sci 4: 60-63

24. Estrada F, Perron P, Martinez-Lopez B (2013) Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat Geosci 6: 1050–1055

25. Solomon S, Rosenlof KH, Portmann RW et al(2010) Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes of global warming. Science 327: 1219-1223

26. England MH, McGregor S, Spence P et al (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat Clim Change 4: 222-227

27. Vecchi ga, Soden BJ, Wittenberg AT, et al (2006) Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing. Nature 441: 73-76.

28. Glaze Wyatt M, Curry JA (2013) Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Clim Dyn 42: 2763-2782

29. Schmidt GA, Shindell DT, Tsigaridis K (2014) Reconciling warming trends. Nat Geosci 7(158-160). doi: 10.1038/ngeo2105

30. Ehn M, Thornton JA, Kleist E, et al (2014) A large source of low-volatility secondary organic aerosol. Nature 506:476-479

31. Watanabe M, Shiogama H, Tatebe H et al (2014) Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus. Nat Clim Change 4: 893–897

32. Lovejoy S (2014) Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause. Geophys Res Lett 41:4704-47

33. Sillmann, J, Donat MG, Fyfe JC et al (2014) Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming. Environ Res Lett 9. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064023

34. Risbey J, Lewandowsky S, Langlais C,et al (2014) Nat Clim Change 4:835-840

35. Guemas V, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Andreu-Burillo I et al (2013) Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade. Nat Clim Change 3:649-653

36. Maher N, Sen Gupta A, England MH (2014) Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries. Geophys Res Lett 41:5978-5986

37. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Branstator G et al (2014) Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming. Nat Clim Change 4: 911–916

38. Dong L, Zhou T (2014) The formation of the recent cooling in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and the associated climate impacts: a competition of global warming, IPO and AMO. J Geophys Res doi: 10.1002/2013JD021395

39. Schleussner CF, Runge J, Lehmann J, et al (2014) The role of the North Atlantic overturning and deep ocean for multi-decadal global-mean-temperature variability. Earth Sys Dyn 5:103-115

40. Rahimzadeh F, Sanchez-Lorenzo A, Hamedi M, et al (2014) New evidence on the dimming/brightening phenomenon and decreasing diurnal temperature range in Iran (1961-2009). Int J Climatol doi: 10.1002/joc.4107

41. Banholzer S, Donner S (2014) The influence of different El Nino types on global average temperature. Geophys Res Lett 41:2093–2099

42. Kosaka Y, Xie SP (2013) Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501: 403–407

43. McGregor S, Timmermann A, Stuecker MF, England MH, Merrifield M, Jin FF, Chikamoto Y (2014) Recent Walker circulation strengthening and Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming. Nature Clim. Change 4:888-892. doi: 10.1039/nclimate2330

44. Huber M, Knutti R (2014) Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nat Geosci 7: 651–656

45. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha PK, et al(2011) Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem Phys 11:13421-13449.

46. Maclas D, Stips A, Garcia-Gorriz E (2014) Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

47. Meehl, GA, Teng H (2014) CMIP5 multi-model hindcasts for the mid-1970s shift and early 200s hiatus and predictions for 2016-2035. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(5):17y11-1716

421 thoughts on “The Great Pause lengthens again

    • I love the way our house Warmists have come out in force below, they’re making that shrill, squealing noise I associate with the slaughterhouse. I suspect they know that with most of the ‘first world’ in serious deep freeze this winter that belief amongst the general public is fading and that their cult is doomed.

    • Tut tut Viscount Monckton ! Are you perhaps giving us a sneak preview of a soon to begin return to a warming phase, by your use of “the pause”, “the great pause” etc, instead of the more accurate “current stoppage” ??

      But a more pressing issue calls for your attention, seeing that critics including Dr. Mears of RSS fame charges you with “cherry picking. (I don’t like cherries anyway)

      So my question to you is :

      Given that the first axiom of the Monckton of Brenchley Algorithm is : The selected “Data Set” shall be that specific RSS data set that ENDS with the latest, most recently released monthly data numbers, of the RSS record; HOW MANY possible data sets are there that conform also to Axiom 2 of the Monckton of Brenchley algorithm ??

      Axiom 2 of the Monckton Algorithm, is that “the data set” shall be the longest possible RSS data set, that complies with axiom #1 and yields a statistical zero slope trend over the length of that data set.

      So how many such data sets are there Christopher, from which you are accused of “cherry picking” by Dr. Mears and others ??

      Enquiring minds want to know. What are you holding back from us Lord Monckton ?? And do you have a suitable de Gaulle like entry into Paris, planned for us in the upcoming festivities there ??

      • He explained this and frankly it didn’t need explaining to anyone with properly functioning gray matter between their ears.

      • Well Robert, I see I asked Lord Monckton precisely five questions. The first was simply a request for his opinion, on something I don’t recall him ever explicitly stating: (Is warming going to start up again?).

        The second and third questions both ask the same thing; again a question he hasn’t ever explicitly addressed: (Is the Monckton Data set unique ? (it is; he knows that, we all know that).

        The last two “questions” clearly facetious, merely asking Christopher what merriment he might be planning for the upcoming Paris Conference.

        So you didn’t say what “this” is, nor did you say what “it” is; so just what is it that those with gray matter functioning can discern ??

        Evidently, familiarity with irony, is not your strong suit.

    • You could literally be right. I’d like to see a monthly update marking the length of time we’ve seen global cooling. It’s been about a dozen years.
      oi59.tinypic.com/jf7ork.jpg

  1. When will the so called “experts” of IPCC realise they aren’t living in 1700’s and thus it’s possible to falsify their adjusted figures and models all over the world. Empiri rules IPCC don’t.

    Where have all the money gone? Btw how much oil, fuel etc have the IPCC believers spent those money on traveling around the world eating, talking and drinking?

      • That UN had problems with their present “status” and have had problems with having promised money to their projects where a lot of the money took other ways than UN said,
        that’s a big black hole.
        That UN have some groups trying in non-democratic ways to rule the world,
        might be true.
        But 2015 isn´t 1950. People today travel and there are social medias that can present non-political-correct information.
        Empiri rules – IPCC (and UN) not.

    • Science has advanced so much since 1990 that it really is not fair for for criticisms of the IPCC to be solely based on this early predictions. There also seems to be evidence that the RSS data set is unreliable, but I will leave that for others to argue. Lastly, ocean temps. are not land surface temps., and the vast heat capacity difference between water and air needs to be acknowledged.

      • Science hasn’t advanced in respect of using Theories of Science.

        Unfortunatly your assumtion that Science has advanced in other respects isn’t true either. All emperic information was known when I was young. All the disaproved AWG thoughts (AWG meet no Scientific Hypotes standard at all, never shown any)
        can be found in studies and works from before 1970. It’s like someone forgotten that the wheel was invented long ago….

        And btw. I myself wrote and used for an academic C-essay a program using the 43 most needed parameters for establishing waterlevels from peak Stone Age up to 1000. Program not only possible to use up to today and so fort. Btw I had my systemprogram exam 1971.

        I have never ever seen so bad models as all used by IPCC:s so called experts.

      • Wow, oh WOW, Norah 4 You — you are amazing — what can you NOT do? (great sense of humor, too)

        I hope that An-thony publishes many of the excellent articles you have written, available on your site. Just WOW!

        **************************************

        @ Barry (AHEM) — So, if technology has advanced so very quickly …. and so very much … in 15 years…. then technology can advance to take care of any POSSIBLE “threat” posed by “climate change” (whatever the cause is), hm?

        YOU — JUST — SHOT — YOURSELF — IN — THE — FOOT!

        Here. Take this aspirin. That’s all Obamacare will give you for that. Bwah, ha,h a, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

      • Is the science “settled”, or is it not?

        Al Gore and others insist the debate is over, but you NOW say that “it really is not fair for for criticisms of the IPCC to be solely based on this early prediction”.

        If the warmists get to keep changing their predictions in an ad hoc fashion, the science is not settled, and should therefore be vigorously debated.

      • Barry, your desperate attempts to switch from Surface Temps to Ocean Temps is a sign of desperation.
        The very nature of the Warming phenomenon you (are probably paid to) believe exists, is based entirely on the CO2 in the atmosphere ‘trapping’ and ‘amplifying’ heat. If the atmosphere is not warming then the hypothesis must be abandoned.

      • I cannot believe this is your idea of a defense. We were supposed to believe these so called experts back then. You now admit that, actually, they hadn’t got a clue. The reality is, they still don’t.

        Eamon.

      • @janice, try to get an aspirin under Obamacare, it would probably involve 10 Drs, 4 politicians and a quail in an oak tree!

  2. Can Arctic sea ice been looked at in the same way? The trend seems to be pretty flat over the last 8-9 years…

  3. How are we so certain it is a pause?

    As the stock market warns past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Because we can create trends does not mean the planet is on the same page.

    It could just as well be a peak, where subsequent decadal movement becomes a cooling trend. We know CO2 in some indeterminate way influences global temperature (simple green house physics does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system. Actually empirical evidence shows CO2 in no way controls global temperature. It’s a factor, but only one of many factors climate science has proved to not understand very well.

    Pause or peak,
    Who knows.
    Doesn’t matter
    AGW is up the creek
    and needs a paddle.

    • (simple green house physics does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system. @ Alx

      Actually “simple green house physics” has nothing to do with planetary climate system, greenhouses work by stopping air convection, the climatic green house effects works by increasing the path longwave Infrared takes to get to space due to scattering by CO2 and H2O.
      Warmists often call me a denier thinking I reject the climatic green house effect, but the truth is I understand it, but I also understand that the amount of the effect is contentious, and it is the warmists denies the existence of any negative feedbacks, yet they tell us the oceans are eating the heat, only to hack it up later like a cat hacks up a hairball!

    • It is what it is and it is a pause. Whether future atmospheric temps go up or down the current flattening of the temps is a pause of trend.

  4. Unlike claims for other data sets, RSS certainly did not have 2014 as the warmest year on record. It was actually the sixth warmest being only 0.002 C warmer than 2007. Based on a slightly modified version from here:
    http://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/01/rss-amsu-2013-10th-warmest-year-on.html

    Here are the top 12 years on RSS now including 2014:
    1 {1998, 0.550},
    2 {2010, 0.472},
    3 {2005, 0.33},
    4 {2003, 0.32},
    5 {2002, 0.315},
    6 2014: 0.255
    7 {2007, 0.253},
    8 {2001, 0.246},
    9 {2006, 0.231},
    10 {2009, 0.222},
    11 2013 0.218
    12 {2004, 0.202},

    • Eleven of the 12 “warmest years” were in the 21st century?
      ..
      Is that statistically significant?

      • The satellite record only starts in 1979. There were also hot years during the natural warming of the 1910s to ’40s before satellites. Cooling followed in the late ’40s to ’70s, despite rising CO2 then.

        The natural warming & cooling cycles are associated with oceanic oscillations. Arctic sea ice was near its high for the century in 1979, after the mid-century cooling following the early 20th century warming & preceding the late 20th century warming.

      • Eleven of the 12 “warmest years” were in the 20th century too, at the time. Whoooo hoooo.

      • …. actually probably twelve out of twelve and probably another 12 out of 12 in the 9th Century.

      • Not really. Global satellite temperature data has only been available since 1979.

        The Earth is billions of years old. The “warmest ever”, or “warmest on record”; are simply propaganda sound bites meant to mislead the naive and uneducated masses.

      • You’re having a lot of troubles with understanding that you need evidence that there is catastrophic anthropological global warming to insist on laws that force people to cut fossil fuel use drastically, not just warming and lack of proof that it is definitely not.

        The temperatures were 0.8°C cooler either side of the 1998 El Nino Peak. It was 2.5 decades ago so if the IPCC catastrophic predictions were correct, temperatures today without an El Nino would be greater and not 0.2°C less.than 1998.

        Taking 0.1°C as what 1998 would have been if there was no El Nino (linear regression of the whole data) and the last two years have only been 0.1°C warmer than 2.5 decades ago. Even 2010, 2nd on the list, was less than 0.4°C warmer than that after more than 2 decades which make.s the lower IPCC mean prediction of 1.7°C per century the uppermost prediction that could possibly fit the data with no further warming supported more by the evidence.

      • NO. I have been the same weight for 20 yrs. In recent years I have gained and lost every winter and summer. Your an idiot and probably have been for many years.

      • Is that statistically significant?

        This neatly sums up what is so often wrong about the way statistics is invoked in climate wars. Statistical significance requires a null hypothesis. In this case, an hypothesized model for temperature time series. Otherwise the question has no meaning.

        As an ‘educated’ guess, no the temperatures of the 21st century are not, by themselves, statistically significant for a random walk null hypothesis.

    • Werner, what are the error bars on those 12 data points? I’m sorry if there’s an obvious link to them, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have them up-front here.

      • Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is something like +/- 0.1. So if we take 0.255 +/- 0.1, we get from 0.155 to 0.355. This range would make 2014 into about a 12 way tie for a place that varies from third to fourteenth.

      • Why would data points have error bars ?? They are just real rational numbers.

        Now there might be a discrepancy between those data points, and what they purport to represent; but real rational numbers are exact; they don’t have error bars.

      • Why would data points have error bars ?

        Perhaps “error bars” are not the correct words. But GISS and Hadcrut4 often jump in opposite directions like yo-yos so you know that all values cannot be correct to 3 significant digits.

      • That’s a surprising question from you George, given that this is Standard Operating Procedure in most of science. When a human measures something with an instrument multiple times, the results aren’t always the same, even though they possibly could/should be. They just aren’t, so error bars are used to show the potential deviations from the quoted value. But you know this – are you asking some other question ?

        Anyway, this might help:

        http://egret.psychol.cam.ac.uk/statistics/local_copies_of_sources_Cardinal_and_Aitken_ANOVA/errorbars.htm

      • There is a glaring error that they go to 3 decimal places or 1’000th of a degree, this is very precise – more so than the equipment used to measure the temperatures. Unless anyone knows where I can get a thermocouple with +/1 0.00005 degree precision ?

      • are you asking some other question ?

        In a sense, yes. I thought what you originally asked about was not about a single measure but how sure we are about the 0.255 average for 2014.

    • And 9 out of 10 people on the street have no idea what the definition of “record” is in this case, nor have the intelligence to even think about it.

    • It’s pretty funny how this is portrayed as a competition between the data sets. Even more so when RSS is put against many others. Isn’t the scientific way to use all of the data sets together?

      • Actually, no It is a face saving way if you have no other argument. But I missed the lecture in science 101 where if you average bad datasets with good ones, that makes the good ones better.

  5. A few years ago, we were challenged to prove there was no warming for 15 years. I promptly showed RSS had no warming for 15 years and was promptly accused of cherry picking a start time before the 1998 El Nino. Someone else started a time after the 1998 El Nino and was promptly accused of going less than 15 years.
    The time has now come where the slope is flat (actually very slightly negative) for 15 years on RSS and the 1998 El Nino is not a factor. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:180/plot/rss/last:180/trend

    • Another example to prove the same point. If one starts in 2001, after the 1998 El Nino (and the 1999-2000 La Nina events), you get a slightly stronger cooling trend than starting in 1998.

    • Werner if you plot 138 samples – from about June 2003 thru [2014] you will see the cooling trend from that peak of the latest millennial temperature cycle.There is a bout a 12 year lag from the peak in solar activity which is seen at about 1991 in Fig 14 in my blogpost
      http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
      which also provides several Figs with the evidence for the quasi-millennial periodicity in the temperature data and forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling

      • What if I said that m y favourite was 1720 to 1998, and 1999 to 2015?
        Might I be accused of cherry-picking?
        Part of the problem is that few of us – on all sides – are actually really good statisticians. Heavens, I know I’m not, although I once knew a chap who was a member of the British Statistical Society John (Cridland, I think, or Cridley, maybe, some such similar; nearly twenty years ago, now).
        And, of course, as Abe Lincoln (is alleged to have) said, “There’re lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
        What data sets are we looking at?
        Which ones are good?
        More succinctly – GIGO.
        Garbage In – Garbage Out.
        As many have noted on here and elsewhere, the Plane Earth is pretty big, and a couple of thousand weather stations (even on the sixty or so million square miles of land and inland waters – ignoring the waters that are 70% or so of the surface) gives an average of one weather station for an area roughly equal to West Virginia or South Carolina or Albania or Belgium (hat tip to the CIA World Factbook). Less than two weather stations for all of England.
        You’d think London would merit one of its own . . . . .
        (But think of the UHI effects!)

        Should one, therefore, have high confidence in the results of these weather stations?
        If the details of what is measured, how, when, who by – etc. – are given, maybe. Maybe.
        But do be aware of what is a possible error.
        I know our much appreciated AW has been on about tis for years – but that doesn’t mean any less emphasis is needed. More, probably – IMHO – GIGO.
        Many other posters have highlighted this, sometimes as a subset of ‘how much we don’t know’.
        Surely this is important!

        Despite the believers’ mantras – the science is not settled.
        Indeed – I think there may still be “unknown unknowns” . . . .
        Certainly, there is a shedload we know we don’t really know. Willis wrote an illuminating & excellent piece a couple of days ago, that gave a much-more-qualified than your-present-writer view.
        If you’ve not read this, do see:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/01/questing-into-the-new-year/

        Yeah, the watermelons make this a political problem.
        We have to be out there with facts – dressed accordingly, perhaps, but real facts – to counter the putative slide to a oligarchy which will condemn many to an early death [don’t they say world population needs to be under a billion, compared to the current seven billion and some . . . .?].

        Ahh – have a good Monday.

        Auto

  6. Dr. Emilio Lazardo (IPCC) just cannot connect the dots (to activate “cross-over” of his over-thruster and break into the 8th dimension and rescue his comrades).

    Ha Ha

      • Season’s Greetings Frank.
        James Cameron will be excited to know his trip into the deep ocean was real ‘zinger’ moment in science.
        That was a pretty nifty sub Cameron had, with all the latest mod-cons, temperature readings etc.

        All that way down to the trench, 6.8 miles, and back.
        Don’t you think Cameron would scream from the roof tops if he passed through a layer of heat measured into the oceans @4hiroshimabombspersecond?

        Sadly for Kevin ‘Linus’ Trenberth, and you, there is no Big Pumpkin hiding in the ocean, just waiting to return and wreak doomsday on those awful humans.

        Maybe the nice Mr. Cameron will lend his submarine, and you can pick an expanse of water on our planet, and send it down looking for the warmth.
        It must be hiding somewhere!

      • Hey Frank.
        Maybe you will ‘believe’ seals?
        Seals help solve deep water mystery

        “Antarctic bottom water – cold, dense water that sits in the abyssal zone between 4000 metres and 6000 metres below the ocean’s surface – plays a plays a key role in global water circulation and the transport of carbon dioxide to the deepest layers of the ocean.

        The discovery of a fourth source of deep water is critical to our understanding of Antarctica’s contribution to global ocean circulation, and will improve modelling of its response to climate change, says study co-author Dr Guy Williams, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Co-operative Research Centre.”

        http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/25/3696395.htm

        Nope. No heat there. Models can now be improved as well. Bonus!

      • Hello Frank.
        Your lack of skills in simple grammar and punctuation is a real troll giveaway.
        However; please do enlighten us all as to what part of “devoid of any heat, any warmth” you don’t understand.

      • Tim,
        What a ridiculous cherry-picked quote to use – but back to the ex Lord Monckton.
        In previous posts , contrary to his claims , he has failed to produce peer reviewed material. He continually churns out this stuff for his acolytes but can’t get it published in any reputable journal, this is very telling dont you think , or does it all fit in with the global conspiracy ?

      • Frank – but it worth repeating – since you repeat your fallacious claims regularly.

        Gee, who are the anonymous all-knowing so-called “peers” who control all scientific data and papers? What are THEIR credentials and THEIR biases and who controls THEIR salaries and papers and THEIR research? You claim anonymous “peer-review” as the absolute first step, and final and absolute last step, and every-edited-step-in-between between a new idea and “the truth” … Yet I can read absolute evidence that both editors and peer-preview and the “consensus science” of delays and editing interferences and peer-review selection IS corrupt and itself designed to prevent unpopular ideas and calculations from coming forth.

        Do you believe a Washington that claims “global warming” the most serious threat the world faces would support and actually fund ANYONE or ANY TYPE of contrary evidence in its religion and its halls of hypocrisy?

      • Frank,
        You disparage and ignore my relevant question. (Re: the unconfirmed ‘Hidden Heat’.)
        You turn the discussion 360 degrees into a different context.
        Great debating tactics.
        And by the way, where do I mention a global conspiracy?

    • “Nope. No heat there.”

      Does anyone have any actual temps? As in real honest-to-gosh numbers?
      And while we’re about it, a few CO2 measurements might be nice, too.

      • Q. “Does anyone have any actual temps?”
        A. The people who claim the heat is hiding in the ocean should have that data for you. Good Luck.

        Q. “As in real honest-to-gosh numbers?
        A. Now you’re being funny.

        Here is Kevin ‘Linus” Trenberth explaining how the Great Pumpkin can hide for centuries:
        “Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries.”
        http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change

        “And while we’re about it, a few CO2 measurements might be nice, too.”

        BBC: Carbon dioxide satellite mission returns first global maps
        “Even with this snapshot, scientists can see that some of their existing models will have to be revised.

        The Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been spoken of as the forerunner of satellite missions that would seek to gain the information needed to patrol climate treaties, by helping to check that promises made by nations on carbon curbs were being kept.”

        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30399073

    • Now, see what you did to my milkshake….all over my Imac screen!….and my sixpack is cramping up!! Skeptics are so much funnier than Alarmists – Thanx, completely made my day!

    • Now, see what you did to my milkshake….all over my Imac screen!….and my sixpack is cramping up!! Skeptics are so much funnier than Alarmists – Thanx, completely made my day!

    • Tim,
      All the data’s not in yet.
      Turning the discussion 360 degrees would set it back to the start point ( basic geometry ) .
      I thought the highly unqualified M of B was the topic.
      As evidenced by this site the real giveaway for the conspiracy theorist is their wilful denial of the science -no matter how often it is pointed out to them and increasingly bizarre explanations for the peer rejection of their evidence.

  7. Happy new year Christopher,
    Yet another peer reviewed piece I see.
    I hope by your promised forthcoming peer reviewed article you didn’t mean the IPA published tripe ” Climate Change , the facts ” ?

      • TT,
        Scepticism is fine but what else do you call someone who wilfully continues to ignore the facts ?.
        Young Earth creationists are also deniers.

      • dbstealey,

        Scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Where does that leave your guys?

        Last I checked, our guys have still have the best models, warts and all. We’re still waiting for your best and brightest to beat them.

      • “best models”??? LOL! Yea, if the model is how to get it wrong!

        You are supposed to learn from your mistakes. But that does not appear to be the case with alarmist “models”.

      • Gates, we can’t even see your models, because of all the warts covering them.

        And science isn’t about “our guys”. It’s about finding the truth, or at least as close as we can come to it.

        Climate alarmists know nothing about scientific veracity. They know all about propaganda, though, and cherry-picking, and confirmation bias. But if they want the truth, they need to admit up front that they were wrong. But there’s not much of that going around…

      • Brandon, how old are you? There are no teams in this debate unless you’re referring to the fight over taxpayer money.

        Go the Gulls!

      • dbstealey,

        Gates, we can’t even see your models, because of all the warts covering them.

        So, as I have asked in the past, show me some models which output as many or more variables than CMIP5 ensemble members on a gridded basis, which have fewer warts.

        And science isn’t about “our guys”.

        I was prevailing on your ability to recognize your own words, to wit: Scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Where does that leave your guys?

        I’ll remember to use “scare quotes” next time since prevailaing on any of your abilities leads to folly more often than not.

        It’s about finding the truth, or at least as close as we can come to it.

        Still waiting for better predictions from the contrarian community. Still not seeing anything. Claims of superior technique, critical thinking and raw intelligence speak ever so much more quietly than actual demonstrations of them.

        Climate alarmists know nothing about scientific veracity. They know all about propaganda, though, and cherry-picking, and confirmation bias. But if they want the truth, they need to admit up front that they were wrong. But there’s not much of that going around…

        I agree, there most certainly isn’t.

      • Robert B,

        Brandon, how old are you?

        44.

        There are no teams in this debate unless you’re referring to the fight over taxpayer money.

        Tell it to Stealey, he’s the one who invoked sides and is now trying ineptly to wriggle out of it. And yes, this does come down to policy so by nature there are sides. I prefer independence in holding my end of an argument — insist on it really, because I don’t like echo chambers and groupthink — but when the rubber meets the road to take action, I know exactly what “team” I play for.

      • Gates,

        You say you’re only 44. I suppose immaturity explains your last couple of comments.

        And what, may I ask [again] is a “contrarian”?

        It is just another climate alarmist label, which takes the place of facts. Because the only facts available deconstruct the runaway global warming nonsense that your clique hangs its hat on.

        And nice to see you’re fixated on me again. I like having an entourage. Even if you’re part of it.

        [PS: your models suck. All of them.]

      • “. I suppose immaturity explains your last couple of comments.”

        Classic ad-hominem.

      • Mr Dbstealey, if you may be so kind, could you please post a link to my comment where I use the two terms you claim?

      • dbstealey,

        You say you’re only 44. I suppose immaturity explains your last couple of comments.

        I’m all to happy to help you figure me out.

        And what, may I ask [again] is a “contrarian”?

        The downside of maturity can be a tendency to forget stuff. Or so I recall reading somewhere.

        It is just another climate alarmist label, which takes the place of facts.

        I’ve been resisting awarding you the third melted irony meter of the year, especially since you got #2, but even my best EM-hardened Russian vacuum-tube model just couldn’t withstand that one. [wipes tears from eyes] Whew … I just … wow. You’ve rendered me almost speechless. Oh dear, the smoke alarm just went off to boot.

        And nice to see you’re fixated on me again. I like having an entourage. Even if you’re part of it.

        One good turn deserves another, I always say. I am in somewhat a bind though … am I not supposed to respond to you when you direct a comment at me or not? Help a poor soul out with some tactics here.

        [PS: your models suck. All of them.]

        I don’t disagree with you on that wholesale. But if that’s the standard we’re trying to beat, and here again I quote you: Scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Where does that leave your guys?

        Should be trivially easy for superior skeptical contrarian climatologists to do better. Where’s their IPCC-beating predictions already?

      • Socrates,

        Classic ad-hominem.

        It’s always interesting for me to observe who will shoot first when I paint a fat target on my back. In this case it was sort of a gimme, no?

      • Brandon

        With the fervor you have posting here, I can’t determine if you are a saint or a masochist.

        I will say your posts are enlightening, and the general response(s) you get ……. entertaining.

      • dbstealey,

        “It is just another climate alarmist label, which takes the place of facts.”

        Were you being intentionally ironic?

      • Socrates,

        Not a saint, at least not the sort you’re thinking. I do enjoy a good online spat — I have a large spleen and it needs venting. If I can do that and be somewhat informative so much the better; I always appreciate it when someone notices. On that note, seeing that both Stokes and Prof. Rabett are in the mix I do hope you (and others) pay more attention to them for the factual content. I see my role mostly as one of running interference and dropping breadcrumbs.

        As for being a masochist, not exactly. More like used to playground taunts by dint of having been a know-it-all egghead since I can remember and not much loved for it. My true friends still rib me about it incessantly. But then we always did enjoy playing rough.

    • Frank,

      Two simple questions:

      What would you call a group of people that willfully HIDE the facts and then exaggerate to try to make their point of view seem more solid (maybe outright liars?).

      In turn, what would you call a someone who follows/embraces, or even just stands by, those people that are described above (useful idiots?) (Frank?)

      • Clearly as Stephen Schneider points out, there is no conspiracy required. What is driving the debate among scientists is the trade off between honesty and publicity. According to Schneider, If you are a scientists in the public eye, to be effective in advancing a political point of view, you have an excuse to be less than honest about the science. Thus, there is no may to know if a scientists in the public eye is being scientifically honest or presenting a politically distorted view of the facts.

        “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand…”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

    • Frank:

      To disparage the character of one’s opponent rather than addressing his contentions is to be guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. When a fallacy is willfully inserted into an argument a result is for the search for truth to be deliberately impeded.

  8. Dr Mears writes: ” the Denialists like to assume……

    His use of the word “denialists” is very worrying indeed especially as he is responsible for RSS data etc..

    • Anyone that uses the ‘denialist’ term is an obvious mercenary and follows the PR agenda. A real giveaway.

  9. “But is the RSS satellite dataset “cherry-picked”? No. There are good reasons to consider it the best of the five principal global-temperature datasets.”

    Not according to Carl Mears, the man behind RSS and much quoted in this post:
    “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

    None of those surface data sets has a significant period (>4 years) of zero or negative trend to present. UAH has a negative trend from a few periods starting in mid-2008.

      • RSS (and UAH) give data for the whole atmosphere. If that’s what you want, RSS/UAH is what you need. In fact, the “RSS” quoted here is for the lower troposphere. But for surface, Dr Mears thinks surface measurements are more reliable.

      • Climate models predict troposphere should warm MORE than surface.

        So to falsify the junkyard climate models RSS is BETTER suited.

      • The other data sets (e.g. HadCrut etc.) are for 70% made up of water temperatures. If I am sailing on the North Sea in winter it can be freezing on deck whereas the water temperature at 1,5 m depth is some 7 C. During winter the water temperature stays rather constant whereas the air temperature above the water varies greatly. Conversely, in summer we can have a heat wave with air temperatures above water of over 25C with large diurnal variations whereas the water tempearture hardly reaches 20C, day or night. What’s the point measuring in great detail the variation in land surface tempartures day and night if we mix those with watertemperature measurents that have little relevance to the actual air temperature over water. I know the common heard excuse: the air temperature measurements over water (HadMAT) are not reliable enough. Reason to do something about that rather than mixing apples and pears and trying to construct a trend from that mixture.
        If I am interested in the temperature trend of the atmosphere why would I bother measuring the water temperature at 1.5 m depth? Why not stick to the satellite measurements as the only true representative of the (lower) atmospheric trends?

      • Nick, using your own trend viewer, RSS shows zero warming for one month LONGER than Lord Monckton’s own calculations, 18 years 4 months;

        Temperature Anomaly trend
        Sep 1996 to Nov 2014
        Rate: 0.000°C/Century;
        CI from -1.095 to 1.096;
        t-statistic 0.000;
        Temp range 0.235°C to 0.235°C

      • Moreover, on average some 7% of the ocean is covered with sea ice. What measurement is included in HadCRUT? The air temperature above the sea ice (greatly varying and up to -40°C or the water temperature below the ice (at a constant -1.8°C)? Or does HadCRUT not include the areas at high latitudes? I know, MSU also excludes areas beyond 82° latitude. So I wonder which one of the two different datasets has a larger or more representative coverage of the atmosphere?

      • Chris S asks: What’s the point measuring in great detail the variation in land surface tempartures day and night if we mix those with watertemperature measurents that have little relevance to the actual air temperature over water.

        Because the heat capacity of water per unit volume is a few thousand times higher than the heat capacity of air per unit volume. In a situation where there is not a thermal equilibrium between the air and the water, then if you are interested in heat flow at the surface, you measure the temperature of the water.

        If you have depth profiles of temperature over time you convert profiles to energy gain or loss anomalies and measure the change in the total amount of energy stored in the oceans which is an absolute change, not a relative one.

      • In a situation where there is not a thermal equilibrium between the air and the water, then if you are interested in heat flow at the surface, you measure the temperature of the water.
        ==============
        In that case, there is absolutely no reason to include surface temperatures over land in your calculation of global average temperatures, because the air from the land will within a few days or weeks at most will interact with the surface of the ocean, just like the ocean air did. Rather, you can more accurately measure the average temperature of the earth by measuring the surface temperature of the oceans.

        If you create a global average temperature using air temperatures over land and water temperatures at depth on the ocean, you are in effect doing a form of double counting. Creating a false average by not counting air temperatures over the oceans, while combining land and ocean air temperatures in the ocean water temperatures.

        global temp = land air + ocean water
        but
        ocean water temps = land air + ocean air
        therefore:
        global temp = land air + land air + ocean air

        Thus, it can be clearly seen there is no need to include land air temps in the calculation of global temp, if you have already included ocean water temps. You might just as well use land temperatures 1.5 meters underground and ocean temperatures 1.5 meters underwater. If you are going to use air temperatures over land, then you need to use air temperatures over water.

      • Eli Rabett says “In a situation where there is not a thermal equilibrium between the air and the water, then if you are interested in heat flow at the surface, you measure the temperature of the water.”

        I am not interested in the heat flow at the surface, I am interested in the air temperature at the surface. We are not measuring the soil surface on land, aren’t we?

      • Eli Rabett responded to my question as follows: “In a situation where there is not a thermal equilibrium between the air and the water, then if you are interested in heat flow at the surface, you measure the temperature of the water.”

        I am not interested in the heat flow at the surface, I am interested in the air temperature at the surface. I am not measuring or interested in soil temperatures on land either, unless you are worried that your burried water pipe burst due to the frozen ground.

      • Eli would refer you to Roger Pielke Sr. who over many years has advocated using ocean heat content as the sole metric of climate change. Now Eli has pointed out that we do not have very good data on that extending back a century or two and we use surface temperature because that’s what we got, but nevermind.

      • It’s hard to keep track of these “sub” threads, and respond.

        So Eli mentions the much greater heat capacity of the ocean water compared to the atmosphere.

        One should also mention, that the liquid oceans and solid ground surfaces, have very much higher thermal emissivities at black body wavelengths relevant at their Temperatures, so it is the solid and liquid surface of the earth that is the launching point for the earth’s cooling radiant emittance. The atmosphere is so low in absorption, that it in no way approximates a black or gray body. The surface is also the source of all direct heat transport to the atmosphere, which the second law asserts must be (net) from hot to cold.

        I can find little reason to be interested in the Temperature of the atmosphere, when it comes to the cooling of the earth.

        But that is just my opinion.

      • Geroge E, Indeed, if the surface were emitting directly to space that would be true, HOWEVER, the emission from the surface passes through the atmosphere and is strongly absorbed at the wavelengths corresponding to vibrational-rotational transitions in greenhouse gas molecules. Oh yes, and the emissivity on those lines (which are quite narrow) is quite high.

        The net of this is that emission to space at those wavelengths only occurs from ~8 km where it is much colder. Thus the rate of emission is much lower than at the surface.

      • Eli R states…”Geroge E, Indeed, if the surface were emitting directly to space that would be true, HOWEVER, the emission from the surface passes through the atmosphere and is strongly absorbed at the wavelengths corresponding to vibrational-rotational transitions in greenhouse gas molecules. Oh yes, and the emissivity on those lines (which are quite narrow) is quite high.” and continues…
        “The net of this is that emission to space at those wavelengths only occurs from ~8 km where it is much colder. Thus the rate of emission is much lower than at the surface.”
        =======================================================================
        Yes, and the far and away strongest GHG is W/V, which also strongly reduces surface insolation, even in clear sky conditions. You say the rate of emission is much lower at 8km… which is true. But there is a reason for this. Near the surface GHG act much the same as non GHG molecules, where they absorb and transmit energy via collision/conduction, (due to this happening far more rapidly then radiation absorption emission), and convection; establishing a LTE in harmony with non GHG molecules, and some of the energy emitted at higher elevations from GHG molecules , is conveyed to them from non GHG molecules, and is conduction from the surface, and or the latent heat of condensation released at altitude. In those instances the energy residence time of the initial solar insolation is shortened by the encounter with GHG molecules.

    • Yes that would be great, but the problem is there are no global surface temperature data sets — at least any with credibility, accuracy or anything close to global coverage.

      USCRN is the gold standard of surface temperature data sets — properly sited, well maintained and calibrated. To the embarrassment of many, it actually shows cooling since its launch in 2005. Granted it is only a US network, but has anyone actually quality checked it against the other data sets (for US data points)?

    • Let’s see. The surface data sets are all pretty much based on the same data (GHCN), so why in the world would they be very different? On top of that, Dr. Spencer has already stated Version 6 of UAH would look more like RSS. You knew that, right?

      • Mears is the authority here. If he thinks the surface data is more reliable than RSS who am I (or Lord M) to disagree.

        I don’t think his claims are wrong. In fact, I think he is absolutely right. But you don’t have to take my word for it.

      • Stokes says:

        …who am I to disagree…

        That is probably the #1 logical fallacy of the alarmist cult: the appeal to authority.

        Eistein was given problems with that fallacy, too.

        The only real Authority is Planet Earth. And you know what? The planet is busy making the alarmist crowd wrong. How about that authority, Nick?

      • Nick wrote: “Mears is the authority here. If he thinks the surface data is more reliable than RSS who am I (or Lord M) to disagree.”

        Dr Mears is an authority on the satellite record. That doesn’t make him an authority, to whom we must automatically defer, on the surface record.

        In fact, the only evidence that Mears introduces to support his contention of the superiority of the surface record is that they “certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!”

        Given the highly massaged and overlapping nature of the surface datasets, that is a very weak supporting argument.

    • Just in case you missed why people refer to the RSS or UAH data rather than surface temperatures

      • Those plots are three different things. The last one appears to be GISS Land/Ocean, including SST. The middle one looks like Hansen and Lebedeff, which is met stations only – they didn’t have a l/o index then. And the left one isn’t Gistemp at all; it is from an early Hansen paper, and based on just a few hundred met stations.

      • And the left one isn’t Gistemp at all; it is from an early Hansen paper, and based on just a few hundred met stations.

        Let me see Nick. Do you mean James E Hansen pictured here in 2011?

        The charts above reveal objectively that he cooled the AGW reference year 1950 about -0.2 °C retrospectively, which questions his trustworthiness as the Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Your argument makes him and consequently also GISS look even worse.

      • “The charts above reveal objectively that he cooled the AGW “
        That is complete nonsense. In fact, the left plot is from Hansen’s 1981 paper, but it isn’t GISTEMP data at all. It is from a NCAR collection, Jenne. And it is just a few hundred stations. GISS didn’t have its own collection then.

        And the second/third is met stations vs land/ocean. That is just dishonest.

      • Great evidence of intentional distortion designed to mislead the public into believing the unsupported speculation that human CO2 drives climate, Robert B.!

        Mr. Stokes: The point is the misleading effect of the graphics, not the various methods underlying them.

      • Judging from your reaction I had identified the ex-public civil servant right then. How about a deal, Nick? You defend errors of the settled science in Hansen’s quest towards inner consensus and I remain unmoved about the impeding man-made disaster of the same magnitude. The best part of the deal is that you don’t need to take my words for it. Compare the temperature anomalies for the reference year 1950 between Hansen’s graphs yourself.

      • Nick, there are features within the plot that are consistent, something that you would not expect considering how much the difference between the red and blue regions has changed if it were merely different data sets being used. Its essentially the same results being tilted because there is a lot of subjectivity in how the data is to be compiled into an index of global temperature change.

      • “Nick, there are features within the plot that are consistent”
        Yes, of course. They represent progress in the measurement of surface temperature. With a few hundred stations, as was available in 1980 (most data had not been keyed into a computer), you get a rough idea. With several thousands, you get a better idea. And it’s likely to be different, else why bother? Then with SST data, you fill another gap. This is progress.

        I can’t see what there is to get excited about with the red/blue. I guess it’s the biggest difference someone could find.

    • None of those surface data sets has a significant period (>4 years) of zero or negative trend to present. UAH has a negative trend from a few periods starting in mid-2008 …
      ==================================
      False.
      Both surface records show no trend 1940 – 1980 while CO2 ~310 – 340 ppm.
      UAH shows a negative trend 1979 – 1990 and no trend 1979 – 1995 while CO2 340 – 355 ppm.

      • Starting with the latest month available, it is correct that Hadcrut4.3, Hadsst3 and GISS all have a pause of less than a year. So any present pause is not worth mentioning for those.

    • Pick your poison, there are several well documented problems with the surface temperature datasets, starting with UHI issues….

  10. A chart from “Steve Goddard” is produced to claim all temperature datasets except RSS have a warm bias . How do we know it isn’t that RSS has a cold bias ? Until the discrepancy is explained, wouldn’t it be better to use UAH as it does not leave out large parts of the globe?

    • Jimmi the Dalek:

      The discrepancy needs no “explanation.” The observed temperature data is simply cooler than the guesses of the folks at UAH and GISS.

      To refresh your memory, the clerk will now read back from the transcript the expert witness’s testimony:

      Clerk: Steven Goddard writes: “The graph compares UAH, RSS and GISS US temperatures with the actual measured US HCN stations. UAH and GISS both have a huge warming bias, while RSS is close to the measured daily temperature data. {above article, second paragraph below Fig. 4}

      • The graph does not show observed temperature. It shows, for CONUS alone, Steven Goddard’s calculation of a spatial average from a distributed network of stations. Do you, or Lord M, have the slightest idea of how he did that? There’s nothing in his post. SG makes gross errors with this stuff.

        “Steven Goddard” used to be a frequent gueat poster at WUWT. Now he’s not even on the blogroll.

      • Nick, you’ve been thrashed so thoroughly over at Climate Audit that you come here, where folks may not know how often you’ve been debunked.

        But I know…

      • “Nick Stokes, didn’t Anthony report that he himself was wrong about 3 days later?”
        No. Firstly, the debunking of the Goddard graph was done by Zeke Hausfather, and he didn’t retract anything. What Anthony retracted, but actually managed to get thoroughly confused about, was his denial of Goddard’s claim that
        “Goddard initially claimed 40% of the STATIONS were missing, which I said right away was not possible.”,

        In fact, quite a lot of stations do have missing values in any month. That is well known, clearly marked on the file. NOAA interpolates those in forming the spatial average. You have to do that, or something similar, to avoid the Goddard trap. A spatial average requires interpolation anyway, and this intermediate step does not change anything. The station interpolation doesn’t create new data.

        The Goddard trap is to just average the stations that report. So if the missing happen to be disproportionately warm places, the average will go down, even though no actual location may be cooling. That was the cause of his initial spike. And since in recent years the pattern is that warm places tend to drop out, SG’s average goes down.

        I analyzed a similar issue href=”http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/someone-is-wrong-on-internet.html” rel=”nofollow”>here. The test is to just do the same averaging arithmetic with the long term average temperatures instead of monthly data. You find that the SG average goes down even though each station stays the same. And in fact, the result is almost the same.

        [Check link address, no follow. .mod]

      • Janice, simply quoting the caption to the figure adds nothing – I am as capable of reading as you are. The measured US HCN stations only cover 3% of the world’s surface. Is that sufficient to decide whether UAH or RSS is the more accurate? What is needed is for someone to investigate rigorously why UAH and RSS are different. Is it the raw data, or is it the differences in the modelling they do to extract temperature estimates? Meanwhile UAH should probably be trusted more as it does not leave out a large section of the globe.

      • Nick Stokes,
        Steve S made no false claims to the graph in this post, “The graph compares UAH, RSS and GISS US temperatures with the actual measured raw US HCN stations. UAH and GISS both have a huge warming bias, while RSS is close to the measured daily temperature data”

        The point is clear, and it is equally clear that you ignore it. US HCN raw, before 30% to 40 % of the data is input from surrounding areas (made up) is an excellent match for RSS, which has no made up data, far greater coverage, and is not adjusted, and was, according to your “are the “authority” here” leaders, suppose to warm far faster then the surface. This is a complete fail of their hypothesis. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/100-of-us-warming-since-1990-is-due-to-fake-temperatures/

        Neither RSS or UAH show 2014 as near the warmest year on record.

        Beyond that, the very slight claim of the surface, and we are really only talking about the ocean here, being virtually the same T as in 1998, and 2010, is still WAY BELOW the IPCC projections, and has only resulted in increased crop yields. Why are you a shell for the .01 degree con…http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/the-0-01-degree-shell-game/

        Also supporting RSS s the fact we have had near record NH snow coverage, above average global sea ice, record early fee of the great lakes, and rapidly increasing arctic sea ice. The “C” in CAGW is once again MIA.

      • David A
        “with the actual measured raw US HCN stations”

        That is a big false claim. He doesn’t show actual measured raw stations. He shows his calculated spatial average of some stations. And it is a different bunch of stations every month. Sometimes a hotter group that others. He’s using absolute temperatures.

        Do you know how he does the area weighting? I suspect there isn’t any.

        “excellent match for RSS, which has no made up data, far greater coverage, and is not adjusted”
        “not adjusted” is a joke. How do you think they get from a microwave signal to a temperature? Temperature of what? But as to coverage, UAH has even better coverage, but gives a sinilar trend to GISS.

        “suppose to warm far faster then the surface”
        That’s your claim. Cite?

      • Nick Stokes says…David A
        “with the actual measured raw US HCN stations”
        That is a big false claim. He doesn’t show actual measured raw stations. He shows his calculated spatial average of some stations. And it is a different bunch of stations every month. Sometimes a hotter group that others. He’s using absolute temperatures.
        ====================================================================
        Sorry Nick, you are completely wrong. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/top-debunker-of-the-year/ “USHCN has 1,218 stations in their database. Prior to 1990, they typically recorded temperatures at about 97% of these stations. But for some reason, USHCN has been reporting monthly temperatures at a smaller and smaller percentage of stations since 1990, and now about 30% of monthly temperatures are completely missing.”

        This chart shows same station to same station trend.
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5147-dec-12-21-27.gif?w=1088&h=750

        Nick continues…“excellent match for RSS, which has no made up data, far greater coverage, and is not adjusted”
        “not adjusted” is a joke. How do you think they get from a microwave signal to a temperature? Temperature of what? But as to coverage, UAH has even better coverage, but gives a sinilar trend to GISS.
        ————————————————————————————————————————
        There readings are verified against weather balloons with very accurate direct readings. This is not an adjustment. Extrapolating a reading 1200 K and ignoring stations within the data base is an adjustment.
        Doing this http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/occupy-iceland/ to Iceland is an adjustment you have failed to explain with other then arm waving. (The meteorologist in charge of the station stated that the adjustment was bogus.)

        Nick continues….UAH has even better coverage, but gives a sinilar trend to GISS.
        ————————————————————–
        Sorry Nick, UAH is much more similar to RSS and shows 2014 nowhere close to the warmest year…
        http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/temperatures/uah-temperatures.php

        Nicks continues regarding the IPCC predicted higher warming in the troposphere…
        “suppose to warm far faster then the surface”
        That’s your claim. Cite?
        ————————————————————–
        Really are you funning me? http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/hotspot-ldquothe-co2-signaturerdquo-testing-the-co2-theory-48.php?searchresult=1&sstring=hot+spot

      • David A said:
        “US HCN raw, before 30% to 40 % of the data is input from surrounding areas (made up) is an excellent match for RSS.”

        Anthony should mention that in his forthcoming paper on the climate reference network.

      • Dear Jimmi the Dalek,

        Please forgive my appearing to insult your obviously high intelligence. My point, which I agree I made a bit too bluntly, is simply that, yes, the match of RSS and the discrepancy of UAH with the data is enough evidence to:

        1. raise a rebuttable presumption that RSS is the more accurate; and
        2. to shift the burden of proof to the sponsors of UAH to prove that their guesses are best.

        With respect for your keen mind and thoughtful questions,

        Janice

      • David A,
        “Sorry Nick, you are completely wrong.”
        How? All you’ve shown is another plot where Goddard takes an average of all stations, adjusted, and subtracts an average of raw values of the stations that reported. A different bunch of stations in the average.

        “There readings are verified against weather balloons with very accurate direct readings. This is not an adjustment.”
        And what do they do if they don’t agree first time?

        But there are stacks of adjustments, just to get an initial reading. You don’t just get a world snapshot. You get a whole lot of readings at different times of day in different places, and have to estimate a global daily average. You have to adjust for view angle. Umpteen adjustments for cloud. Then, you try to compare with balloons etc. But they don’t have a reading at exactly the time and place of the balloon. More adjustment. Etc.

        “Sorry Nick, UAH is much more similar to RSS”
        Sure doesn’t look it from the plot above. And yes, they agree that 2014 was not as warm in the troposphere as it was down here. But for trends it is quite different. I gave here the trends since 1998. RSS a way outlier on the low side. UAH higher than most surface.

        “Really are you funning me?”
        So you link to a sceptic site with no sources or adequate description. So of course I have to dig. What they show is Fig 1 from Douglass et al, 2007. Not an uncontroversial paper. But what they leave out is that the plot is for tropics only. You are citing it for global figures.

      • “In fact, quite a lot of stations do have missing values in any month. That is well known, clearly marked on the file. NOAA interpolates those in forming the spatial average. You have to do that, or something similar, to avoid the Goddard trap” Nick Stokes, above.

        Steve Goddard’s claim (now) seems to be that 40% of the data for 2014 are marked as estimated because they are missing. I think both Watts and Curry both found examples of closed stations still putting out estimated data for years which makes your excuse a bit silly. Its not about a month missing in a year but years of data.

        There are better ways to analyse the data if the record is far from perfect than to estimate data where 40% is missing.

      • David A,
        “Sorry Nick, you are completely wrong.”
        Nick “How? All you’ve shown is another plot where Goddard takes an average of all stations, adjusted, and subtracts an average of raw values of the stations that reported. A different bunch of stations in the average.
        ———————————————————————————————————-
        You are missing a great deal. The adjustments to the raw stations are documented and not in dispute. They are far more then the legitimately debatable TOBs adjustments, and they continue to this day.
        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/ncdc-breaks-their-own-record-for-data-tampering-in-2014/

        Again, feel free to explain just the Iceland “adjustment” before you attempt to justify the entire database.
        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/occupy-iceland/ (no arm waving please.)

        Nick quotes me..“There readings are verified against weather balloons with very accurate direct readings. This is not an adjustment.”
        Nick asks, “And what do they do if they don’t agree first time?
        ————————————————————————————————-
        It is called, are you ready, as one word is all that is needed, CALIBRATION, and is far different then the Iceland “adjustment” above, which you cannot explain with any number of words, or the homogenization of stations 1200 K away, https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/temperatures-now-compared-to-maintained-ghcn/ or the dropping of 90 percent of the stations, or the Bolivia affect, or the Australian adjustments, or the increasing use of airports and the spreading or their UHI, or a dozen other issues I can show you.

        Nick continues….”But there are stacks of adjustments, just to get an initial reading. “You don’t just get a world snapshot. You get a whole lot of readings at different times of day in different places, and have to estimate a global daily average. RESPONSE>>> Sad that they do the same to the surface readings (Dumb, if you want an accurate record, to keep moving to different stations, and in the US database they have gone from consistently using 97 percent of the stations, to now only using about 70 percent or less, infilling the rest, after dropping most of the stations. This is why any raw record of “consistently active stations accurately reflects the satellites, 1998 vs 2014, not the adjusted surface record.

        Nick continues, “You have to adjust for view angle. Umpteen adjustments for cloud. Then, you try to compare with balloons etc. RESPONSE>>> They do not try to compare, they CALIBRATE and know the readings are accurate in the disparate conditions. Their coverage is far more universal, and very consistent, and verified thousands of times against the most accurate thermometers we have developed.
        ================================================
        “Sorry Nick, UAH is much more similar to RSS”
        Nick says…Sure doesn’t look it from the plot above. And yes, they agree that 2014 was not as warm in the troposphere as it was down here. But for trends it is quite different. I gave here the trends since 1998. RSS a way outlier on the low side. UAH higher than most surface.
        RESPONSE, Nick, it is not controversial that 1998 was significantly warmer then 2014 for both UAH and RSS. Also, in the UAH data set, there are over twenty months between 1998 and 2013, with a greater anomaly then ANY month in 2014. Since 1998 until NOW , neither data set, RSS or UAH, has shown a warmer world in ANY year. Bottom line, neither RSS or UAH show 2014 as close to 1998, and the record SH sea ice, the increase in NH sea ice, the cold US and record NH snow coverage, the record early freeze of the great lakes, all support the satellite view of 1998 vs. 2014. Also the 2014 warmth was primarily in the oceans, based on SSTs, which are primarily caused by warmth from the oceans, which take centuries to overturn, and are primarily warmed by SW radiation and flux in surface insolation, not LWIR.
        =======================================

        Nick quotes me. “Really are you funning me?”
        Nick continues…”So you link to a sceptic site with no sources or adequate description. So of course I have to dig. What they show is Fig 1 from Douglass et al, 2007. Not an uncontroversial paper.
        But what they leave out is that the plot is for tropics only. You are citing it for global figures.”

        Response…
        I suspect that most all scientific peer review papers are controversial to someone. The graphic however is not controversial, the IPCC troposphere projections are wrong, and not by a little. Did you fail to also notice the “labeled” IPCC Chapter 9 troposphere projections, compared to the OBSERVATIONS from the SAME area, demonstrating that the IPCC troposphere projections were grossly incorrect to the OBSEVATIONS
        http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/hotspot-ldquothe-co2-signaturerdquo-testing-the-co2-theory-48.php?searchresult=1&sstring=hot+spot

        I did not site troposphere warming fail for global figures, SO nice straw man, but simply stated the IPCC troposphere projections were wrong, but more importantl then such pedantry, the IPCC was wrong precisely in the areas they predicted the most warming would occur. (In most science pursuits this disproves the theory, or in this case the theory of extreme AGW)

        Even worse for the theory, is that the theory is really CAGW, because without the C, what is the fuss about?
        With the “C” MIA, and most of the GW in the atmosphere, also MIA, and most of the predicted GW at the surface MIA (see the IPCC modeled fails) what are we so worried about?

        In fact, would you not agree, the benefits of CO2 are observed to far outstrip the harms, and those benefits are likely, according to thousands of peer reviewed observations, continue.

  11. Accordingly, even on the quite extreme NODC ocean heat content record, the change in mean ocean temperature in the upper 2000 m in recent decades has been less than 0.5 K per century equivalent.

    Thermodynamics is truly miserable and anything but intuitive, even for most scientists and engineers. The problem is that it provides us with a raft of equations that we can misuse.

    mass of atmosphere = 5 x 10^18 kg

    mass of oceans = 1.4 x 10^21 kg

    ocean mass / atmosphere mass = 280

    The specific heat capacity of the atmosphere changes with altitude so I will ignore it.

    If we could extract the heat involved in raising the ocean 0.5 C and apply it to the atmosphere, the temperature would increase 140 C!

    Yes it is ridiculous. Just because you have an equation, it doesn’t mean you will get a meaningful answer. (On the other hand, the same misused equation explains why a ground source heat pump can be a very efficient way to heat your house.)

    My question is this: Why would anybody expect that 0.5 C heating of the ocean would cause more than 0.5 C warming of the atmosphere?

    • CommieBob

      The argument that ocean heat might one day bite us in our collective asses is based on Grubering. As an alarm-inducing just-so story it relies on people not understanding the difference between heat and temperature. The CAGW meme says a lot of heat stored in the ocean will at some future time raise the temperature of the atmosphere rapidly. Further that this heat is stored in the deep oceans where it is about 4 deg C. People who do not realise that the heat cannot gather itself together creating a high temperature are inclined to think that a lot of heat means a high temperature. The root cause is a poor retention of high school science lessons.

      On another thread I pointed out that a warming ocean emits CO2, according to the rise in temperature and posited that this contributes to the atmospheric concentration. On the other hand, when the concentration rises, it pushes CO2 into the sea.

      A contributor pointed out that the rise in the atmospheric concentration was 10 times the rate of release based on the ocean temperature rise. This would be true if the mass of the ocean and atmosphere were the same. Meaning, if the oceans were 15 metres deep the 1/10 would be true. But the oceans are about 3700 metres deep. Given the measured warming of the upper 700 metres of the ocean over the past century, it is quite enough to account for 100% of the atmospheric CO2 increase in the modern era. Wow.

      The alarmists are burning their candle at both ends and the middle. Rising CO2 is said to decrease ocean pH by absorption. But the oceans are warming which means they, rather, release CO2. The release rate is 1/10 per available molecule which is to say, per atmosphere-mass. That CO2 release was held to pose a threat of runaway warming (induced by us of course). But if oceans release CO2 when they warm, why isn’t the initial rise in CO2 attributed to the oceans warming out of the LIA? I mean, it’s their runaway disaster scenario. Why don’t they believe it works all the time?

      Considered realistically the human impact on the temperature or the CO2 content of the atmosphere has to very close to zero if the oceans really are warming.

      • Totally agree with you. Plus – according to the IPCC – global (atmospheric) temperatures will be raised due to increased anthropogenic carbon dioxide. If there no measurable increase in global atmospheric temperature, how is the heat going to get into the oceans? AFAIK, the sun can heat the oceans, and I suspect that there is some geothermal activity that can also do likewise. What no-one has demonstrated is how infra-red emissions from carbon dioxide can heat the oceans (apart from the first few microns which should cause increased evaporation and hence a little cooling due to loss of latent heat). I’ve looked for research into the above, but so far have not discovered it.

        Oh, and the other little fact that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is only about 3% of all atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      • Crispin … now that you mention Grubering …

        Indeed, the book is deeply disturbing in showing how overenthusiastic scientists, poor science, massive conflicts of interest, and politically driven policy makers can make deeply damaging mistakes. Over 40 years I’ve come to recognise what I might have known from the beginning that science is a human activity with the error, self deception, grandiosity, bias, self interest, cruelty, fraud, and theft that is inherent in all human activities (together with some saintliness), but this book shook me.

        The book in question is a forensic demolition of the hypothesis that saturated fat is the cause of cardiovascular disease. http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7654 The article, from which the quote comes, is in the British Medical Journal (The BMJ).

        Is science in trouble?

        … most published research findings are probably false.

        http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

        When politics and profit become involved, science is probably less reliable than Philip Tetlock’s dart-throwing chimp.

      • Clearly there are close parallels between climate science and nutritional science:

        An analysis of the data from the Seven Countries Study in 1999 showed a higher correlation of deaths from heart disease with sugar products and pastries than with animal products.13 John Yudkin from London had since the late 1950s proposed that sugar might be more important than fat in causing heart disease,4 but Keys dismissed his hypothesis as a “mountain of nonsense” and a “discredited tune.” Many scientists were sceptical about the saturated fat hypothesis, but as the conviction that the hypothesis was true gripped the leading scientific bodies, policy makers, and the media in the US these critics were steadily silenced, not least through difficulty getting funding to challenge the hypothesis and test other hypotheses.
        http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7654

      • Crispin,

        You make a convincing argument concerning the oceans accounting for 100% of atmospheric CO2 increases. I am interested in where you got your information. Could you share with us your source/calculations?

        Thank you.

      • Crispin,

        You make a convincing argument concerning the rates of CO2 being released from the oceans accounting for 100% of recent increases. Could you share your source/calculations?

        Thanks.

      • Jon K and (apparent) alter ego Master (2015 edition),

        Until Crispin answers, here is some background information to help you:

        1. Carbon Cycle
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/

        2. Carbon Mass Balance

        On the whole, continental shelves are significant sinks for atmospheric CO2, ranging from 0.33 to 0.36 PgCyr1, which corresponds to an additional sink of 27% to 30% of the CO2 uptake by the open oceans based on the most recent pCO2 climatology of Takahashi et al.(2009). On the other hand, inner estuaries, saltmarshes and mangroves emit CO2 to the atmosphere of 0.50 PgCyr1, although these estimates are prone to large uncertainty. The concept of marginal seas as sinks and near-shore coastal ecosystems as sources of atmospheric CO2 allows reconciling diverging views on carbon cycling in the coastal ocean.

        http://www.co2.ulg.ac.be/pub/chen_&_borges_2008.pdf (p. 586)

        As to Crispin’s conclusion, while I do not have a study to cite for you, vis a vis all natural sources and sinks combined (leaving aside his assertion about oceans alone being the main net CO2 source at this time) it is highly likely to be correct. Net natural CO2 (from all sources and sinks) is greater than all human sources of CO2 by a factor of 2, thus, even a small natural imbalance would either: 1) as a net source, completely overwhelm any possible effect of human CO2; or 2) as a net sink, completely absorb all human CO2.

      • Janice,

        Thank you for your reply. The double post was an accident, I originally posted as Jon K but then wordpress logged me in as themaster15 after I submitted. I didn’t think the first one went through so I re-submitted.

        I appreciate you taking the time to link me to relevant information. Though I understand that the Earth’s natural sources and sinks may have the potential to overpower anthropogenic emissions, it was my understanding that the natural sources and sinks were in a sort of equilibrium before we started emitting CO2, explaining the mostly flat trend prior to the industrial revolution. In that case, our emissions would throw off the equilibrium. This position is defined and supported here: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

        The paper linked to below puts our emissions at about 8.7 PgC / yr, and states that after all sinks take their share, 43% remains in the atmosphere, in agreement with the report linked above (which is good, because they cited this paper).

        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html

      • Dear M15,

        You’re welcome. A caution: your confidence in the “Nature” paper you link to may be a bit misplaced. Remember that the article I cited above said: “… these estimates are prone to large uncertainty.” I’m too tired to read the “Nature” paper, but, do check their error bars or confidence intervals. Even a tiny imbalance in natural sources/sinks (and they are likely never in perfect equilibrium) can negate the effect of or absorb the emissions of human CO2 to the point of making them of no potential significance at all.

        This fact, along with there still being no evidence of causation of CO2 driving temperature, only speculation as to that happening, makes the AGW campaign, so far, largely one of propaganda, not science.

        Sure hope ol’ Crispin comes back… .

        Good night and best wishes (assuming you are sincerely seeking truth),

        Janice

  12. “As the Pope unwisely prepares to abandon..”

    This pope will go down in history for maintaining horrendously bad stances on climate change by the Catholic Church. It was Pope Innocent VIII in te 1480s who triggered gruesome widespread witch hunts after the pope blamed witches for the increasingly weird weather that evolved during the Little Ice Age.

    • Brilliant actually. A whole new take on selling “Indugences” Forget adultery, lying, stealing, and all that NOW, all new Carbon indulgences for the faithful (and unfaithful) just watch the Holy See’s coffers fill! After all the Pope needs a new Cathedral. (sarc/humor) Sigh, I will be going to confession over this.

      • Good one, Mike, lol…. no, not laughing. Sad, but essentially true (no, not the go to confession, part (smile)).

    • On the request of German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, Innocent VIII issued the papal bull Summis desiderantes (5 December 1484), which supported Kramer’s investigations against magicians and witches:

      “It has recently come to our ears, not without great pain to us, that in some parts of upper Germany, […] Mainz, Köln, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen, many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting […]”[6]
      Kramer would later write the polemic Malleus Maleficarum in 1486, which stated that witchcraft was to blame for bad weather. These remarks are included in Part 2, Chapter XV, which is entitled: “How they Raise and Stir up Hailstorms and Tempests, and Cause Lightning to Blast both Men and Beasts”:[7][8]

      “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”
      Both the papal letter appended to the work and the supposed endorsement of Cologne University for it are problematic. The letter of Innocent VIII is not an approval of the book to which it was appended, but rather a charge to inquisitors to investigate diabolical sorcery and a warning to those who might impede them in their duty, that is, a papal letter in the by then conventional tradition established by John XXII and other popes through Eugenius IV and Nicholas V (1447–55).[9]

      (Source: Wikipedia)

      • Ah… quite enlightening…. “… in some parts of upper Germany, […] Mainz, Köln, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen, many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith … .

        So, in 2015:

        1) we who beg to differ with the Pope are now not just “protestants,” we are also “den1al1sts;” and

        2) Roman Catholics can join the AGW cult or go to hell.

        Perhaps… it is about time for another Reformation…?

      • Would you please get off our backs, and end this continuing propaganda that the Church is anti-science?
        Gutenberg, Copernicus, and Galileo were all Catholics. Galileo did his major work in physics, as a professor supported by a Catholic College. These men, and Leonardo, Rafael, Michelangelo, and many more all worked in the Catholic milieu of Italy, called the High Renaissance. An overwhelming number of other Scientists have been Catholics, Pascal, Fermat, Pasteur, Mendel, Descartes, Lagrange, Lavoisier…
        And so many more. Yet, despite their work, people like you continue to display your bias and ignorance. This happened (and still is happening), to Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Using Einstein’s equations, he showed the Universe originated from a single small singularity. At the time, Fr. Lemaitre was derided and smeared by the Scientific establishment, and the theory dismissed as hokum. When he was shown to be correct, they responded by calling the process, the “Big Bang!”. No, not the big bang. The Georges Lemaitre theory. End your ignorance.

      • Dear Joe,

        You may not have been addressing me, but, just in case I offended you, I write to explain. I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be, generally speaking, anti-science. And religion, per se, is not anti-science. Religion deals with both material knowledge AND with matters of the soul. That is, the set “Religion” includes the sub-set “Science,” but the set “Science” does not include “Religion.” Religion can include Science because only in the areas where there is apparent disagreement between what the Bible (or other religious book) teaches and what Science says is so, does Religion take a view different from some scientists and this is only in areas where there is only educated guessing happening, not scientific certainty (such as that the earth is, indeed round).

        AGW is not even an educated guess. AGW is fantastic imagination based on the flimsiest cobweb of conjecture composed from the thinnest strand of substance (CO2’s behavior in a highly controlled laboratory setting which resembles the system called “earth” not at all).

        This Pope’s stance on AGW is just another sad incident in the history of humankind where a religious leader, fooled by the l1es of those he trusts, has chosen to take a political stand for the side of wrong.

        The problem boils down to this:

        The Pope should not have strayed from his main mission: preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Saving souls from hell is a matter of eternal significance. “Climate change” pales to utter insignificance beside a matter of such great magnitude.

        “… what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”

        II. Corinthians 4:18.

        I think, and I hope, Joe, that you and I could shake hands on this:

        In essentials, unity;
        in non-essentials, liberty;
        in all things, charity.

        Philip Melanchthon

        Your sister in Christ,

        Janice

    • The Pope has recognized that Climate Change is not a scientific matter, on which the Church does not offer opinion.

      Rather the Pope has recognized that Climate Change is a matter of Faith, on which the Church does offer an opinion.

  13. Dr. Watts and Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

    Reference the first slide. We left a rather flat sunspot cycle in the late 70s that chilled the earth and expanded the Arctic Floating Ice Field and three global-warming cycles followed. I call them that for they provide superb growing seasons with plenty of hurricanes, tropical storms and such that nourished our lands.

    In 2008, we began a solar sunspot minimum. What I noticed the most was the wide fluctuations in temperature during The Pause are tightening up around your mean in the last few measurements, Lord Monckton. It would be great to do some statistical analysis of the fluctuations during global warming cycles, and now, the global cooling cycles through 2030.

    I think we should see the numbers fall below the line on an average with some cool dips through 2035. The twin solar minimum sunspot cycle, pointed out by Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, should begin around 2019.

    Most Sincerely,

    Paul Pierett

  14. As the evidence of there being no warming mounts, the confidence of the Warmistas grows that there will soon be no more “Denialists”. The IPCC will soon reach 100% confidence in the truth of the models, even as the discrepancy of the models to the facts increases yearly. There is nothing like a religious faith to blind people to the Truth. No wonder the Pope threw in his lot with the Warmista Faith. Warmism is more solid than Christianity these days but much more damaging to society.

  15. Global Warming: IPCC is a political body, prepares reports on global warming and its’ impacts on nature to serve political interests by distributing billions of US$ to serve its goal wherein top educational universities – NGOs – government agencies share.

    Global temperature rise has three major components, namely, natural cyclic variation component, local and regional ecological changes component & anthropogenic greenhouse gas changes component known as global warming. Natural cyclic variation component present a 60-year cycle varying between -0.3 to +0.3 oC. Global warming component is about 50% of global temperature rise since 1950. Ecological changes play vital role at local and regional level but goes in to averaging of global temperature. They include heat-island-effect and cold-island-effect. The heat-island-effect is over emphasized in the global temperature averaging as in urban areas the met stations are densely located; and rural areas the met stations are sparsely located. Thus, the global average temperature is over estimated. This is the case with surface measurements. However, this is eliminated with satellite data. From this, it is clear that global warming component contribution to global temperature rise is less than 0.1 oC since 1950 to date. This may at the most reach 0.2 oC by the end of the century. Thus, its impact at global scale is insignificant. However, at local and regional scales, heat-island-effect and cold-island effect plays vital role.
    The other major component that effect life-forms at local and regional level is the pollution and not the anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If we look at electricity production under different sources in India, USA & Germany, they all are on par in respect of pollution:

    % share of source-wise electricity/energy production
    Source India/USA/Germany@

    RES ——— 11%/03.8%/22.4%
    Nuclear —— 2%/21.5%/15.9%
    Hydro ——- 21%/06.0%/03.4%
    Diesel/gas — 11%/19.8%/14.7%
    Coal ——— 55%/48.9%/43.6%*
    * coal + lignite in the case of Germany; @ it is for 2014 for Germany and India & USA it is for 2011

    Extremes in weather over different parts of the globe are part of the natural rhythms in meteorological parameters. They are quite different over different parts of the globe. For agriculture and water resources they play important role and thus needs characterization of such rhythmic variations and thus homogenization of regions based on such studies critical. IPCC should look in this direction to help the developing nations. At Paris meet this must be emphasized and not the issue of carbon dioxide.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  16. Does anyone else sense something different?

    Stokes and Mosher are, actively on several blogs, typing in more present tense.

    Thank you

    I see a truncated end to the data wars in our future. 》

    Werner and JTF are successfully facilitating that along with many others, including nature.

    Thank you too!

  17. As said above, RSS shows the Great El Nino more than other global temperature datasets. Also, the Great El Nino is, as explained above, a century-class warming spike, that is early in the 18 years 3 months period that was chosen for earliest start date with trend completely lacking warming. I think a century-class spike near one end of an 18 year 3 month period distorts the true trend.

    I think the maximum duration of the pause itself in RSS is the longest period starting after the Great El Nino that completely lacks a warming trend. As of now, this is from the beginning of 2000 to the beginning of 2015, or 15 years. And over the same time period, UAH, the other major satellite dataset, reports a linear trend with very close to .13 degree C of warming. I base these statements on my usage of woodfortrees.org. I think the truth, even if closer to RSS than to UAH, is in-between, and the pause started during the warmup in 2001, and has lasted 13 years 5 months to 14 years.

  18. That the IPCC “confidently but misguidedly predicted” global warming is an equivocation on the polysemic terms “predicted” and “global warming.” By logical rule, no conclusion may be drawn from an equivocation for though an equivocation sounds like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, one cannot draw a conclusion from the existence of the “great pause” regarding the man-made global warming issue.

  19. 24. Estrada F, Perron P, Martinez-Lopez B (2013) Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat Geosci 6: 1050–1055

    ++++++

    In support of the implications of the Montreal Protocol and it’s effect on CFC + related chemicals, several papers and on line comments by Prof Q. Lu of the University of Waterloo, Ontario are relevant. He proposes and demonstrated on a lab scale the mechanism involving CR, GCR and (mostly) CFCs in the Antarctic and their influence on ozone.

    The papers supporting powerful heating by black carbon particles (1800 times CO2 per kg) are based on sound physics and no complex model is required. If true, much of the recent warming must be assigned to BC not CO2.

    The core of the alternative (parallel and contradicting) argument is that black carbon heating is offset by organic carbon particle cooling. But they are arguing both sides: BC was responsible for heating when trying to explain the Great Pause but the concomitant OC is ignored when creating alarm. The OC is counted when the net forcing is totted up. See any of the AR’s for a forcing inventory and the OC is shown. The two arguments are mutually contradictory.

  20. If anyone is interested, I have a very rough Bayesian argument that shows that AGW has a 10% chance of being true. And that’s me being generous towards AGW, although I also had to heavily summarize the data that we have.

    Is it okay to put here for feedback, or should I wait for an open thread?

    • If you do post your argument, Mr. Ghantous, you will have to:

      a. refute Dr. Murry Salby’s strong case that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle in his April, 2013 Hamburg, Germany lecture (posted below); and

      b. take into account such facts as the factor of 2 greater magnitude of natural versus human CO2 sources and sinks (i.e., even a small natural imbalance can completely overwhelm any human CO2) for me to find your argument persuasive.

      Dr. Murry Salby — Hamburg, Germany, April, 2013

  21. I notice neither Figure 1 nor Figure 3 shows the horizontal line actually intersecting the temperature plot; Are the graphs truncated improperly?

    They have, in Monckton’s previous essays, always intersected the temperature plot at an earlier date.

  22. What’s not to like about what the pope says? Is this the same Monckton that, according to the unflattering Wikipedia, demanded that ALL scientists should be people of faith, presumably of the Xn variety? I am just asking because it is perfectly possible that there is more than one person going by that name… :P

    Btw, definition of faith:
    Believing something without evidence or in light of evidence to the contrary (!). — Uhh… that can’t go well for too long then…

    • Whose definition of ‘faith’ is that?
      Have you read Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical on ‘Faith and Reason’?
      Have you studied what Thomas Aquinas had to say on the subject?
      Btw. there’s plenty of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. ‘or in light of evidence to the contrary..’ might seem like an appropriate thing to say about those who reject it.
      Similarly, the Miracle of Fatima. Or maybe those thousands of people who witnessed it were all suffering from the same hallucination at exactly the same time in exactly the same place. It’s wonderful what ‘explanations’ people will come up with when they don’t want to accept something.

    • The Biblical definition of faith: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.” So faith does involve “evidence,” evidence of things not seen. By that definition, science also uses “faith” to make discoveries by following the evidence for things “not seen” from atoms to black holes.

  23. >>It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.<<

    as far as I understand thermodynamics, warmth always travels towards the cold. So, in many areas of the oceans an exchange of heat into the atmosphere from the sea is impossible because the atmosphere is warmer than the seawater. Correct?

    • Many areas of the ocean is not most though is it?

      In Britain the temperature of the ocean is currently around 10/11C. The atmosphere is ranging from zero at night to around 10 or so max during the day.

      Generally the atmosphere will be warmer than the ocean during the day and often at night, but not during the winter. We have the gulf stream flowing past our door. It is difficult to see how a fraction of a degree increase in the ocean temperature will change anything.

      This will depend on latitude etc as well, so all these differences need to be taken into account when considering if there is a net transfer of heat annually from ocean to atmosphere and if so, how much

      tonyb

      • Thanks, got that.
        >>This will depend on latitude etc as well, so all these differences need to be taken into account when considering if there is a net transfer of heat annually from ocean to atmosphere and if so, how much<<
        But the resources are limited. ARGOS for example have been subject to discussion here at WUWT. They do measure water temperatures whilst freely floating around the oceans, driven by currents. They are pitiful few by numbers, as Lord Monckton stated using the comparison with the Great Lakes. I've consulted the Argo User Manual but did not find any clue that ARGO collects data like air temp or air pressure. The atmospheric data relating the position and time of the ARGO dive must therefore be taken from another source(e.g.satellite). To me it seems, with the means at hand, impossible to calculate these transfers from water to air and vice-versa. It turns out a laughingstock to sell to the public and the science numeric values down to the tenth or even a hundreth of a degree, whatever the measurement unit may be. The theory of temperature "hiding in the oceans" seems monkey-business to me.

    • The mean T of the oceans is warmer then the mean T of the atmosphere. Oceans lead the atmospheric T, which is why global T follows the ENSO cycles so well.

      This is a fairly strong indication that SW flux to surface insolation is the cause of global warming, and cooling.

  24. The Gaian Holocene is experiencing Mann-O-Pause.
    That was a helluva hot flash back in ’98…..

  25. Using Bayes’ Theorem to examine the probability of the AGW hypothesis being true
    —————————————————————————————————————

    NB: This is very much a Green Paper. I am probably wrong on a lot of things here, as I have no training in science, maths or statistics.

    Bayes Theorem, for those who are not familiar with it, is simply a way to figure the probability of any given hypothesis being true, provided you have at least some evidence and are able to put rough numbers to subjective judgements.

    For example, if you think that something is ‘highly likely’, you don’t mean 50%, or 60%. You could mean anywhere from 70%-90%, give or take. And that’s all the precision you need.

    Hypotheses can be: contents of decrypted messages; the existence of historical figures or actions; the existence of phenomena; pathological conditions, etc. In pathology, when tests are conducted for, say, HIV, BT is used, and known as Negative Predictive Value and Positive Predictive Value. This is how we know that mammograms and HIV tests are pretty much useless.

    You don’t need to be good at maths or have any kind of philosophical qualification to use Bayes’ Theorem. You don’t even need to know the formal argument of why it’s true (but even that is not hard to understand conceptually). Even casual evidence shows that BT is extremely powerful. It was used to break Enigma, among other things, some of which are still classified AFAIK.

    The form of BT is very simple: P = A/(A+B). It’s not A/B, because you are not comparing one part to another; you’re comparing one part to the total. And laymen like me (and a few of you, if any) only need to care about three terms:

    1. The probability that your hypothesis AGW is true on background information alone. This is formally expressed as P(h|b).

    2. How expected your evidence is if AGW is true. This is formally expressed as P(e|h.b).

    3. How expected your evidence is if AGW is not true. This is formally expressed as P(e|~h.b).

    That’s it.

    So here are my figures (between 0 and 1 exclusive) for each:

    1. 0.1

    2. 0.75

    3. 0.75

    Here is why I gave those figures:

    1. We have had lots of claims of doom and gloom: the End Times; the rapture; Y2K; high minimum wage will destroy the economy; nuclear war; etc. But none of those things are true. I’m giving a 10% chance of AGW being true for the sake of generosity.

    2. If AGW is true, then we would expect to see more CO2 in the atmosphere (well, duh); we would expect to see less Arctic sea ice; we would expect to see higher mean global temperatures now than in 1950, as models project; flooding; drought, etc. So lots of those things are true.

    3. If AGW is not true, we would expect to see… well, natural variability. And what is NV? Fluctuating oceanic pH values that don’t seem to have a long term trend; rises in mean global temperature without CO2 significantly >350ppm, such as the EWP of ’14-’45; the MWP; fluctuating ocean temperatures; drought; flooding, etc. In fact we haven’t seen anything unusual. And we have the RSS dataset which shows a flat temperature trend all the way back to 1998.

    All this is not taking into account the patterns of irrational behaviour such as appeals to authority, cherry picking, enemy images, straw man arguments, demonization of opposing views, self-aggrandizement, withholding data, etc.

    Note how 2. and 3. are – or can be – virtually the same! This is one good reason to argue that AGW cannot be differentiated from NV, and if you can’t differentiate the two, isn’t Occam’s Razor going to point towards NV? Well, maybe, but Occam’s Razor is not a logical test. BT is.

    So BT is basically this, no matter what your preferred form:

    P = [P(h|b) x P(e|h.b)] / [P(h|b) x P(e|h.b)] + [P(~h|b)x P(e|~h.b)]

    From logical necessity, P(~h|b) is the inverse of P(h|b), because, in simple terms, if your hypothesis is true one time out of ten, it must be false nine times out of ten.

    But P(e|~h.b) does not have to be the inverse of P(e|h.b), because in simple terms, good evidence (or poor evidence, or no evidence at all) can exist for either term, and therefore there is no logical necessity for one to be the inverse of the other.

    Entering the values 1., 2. and 3., I get this:

    P = (0.1 x 0.75) / [(0.1 x 0.75) + (0.9 x 0.75)]

    therefore

    P = 0.075/(0.075+0.675)

    therefore

    P = 0.075/0.75

    therefore

    P = 0.1

    Therefore, the probability that AGW is true, given my rough estimations, is 0.1, or 10%. This contrasts strongly with the IPCC’s claim of 95% certainty.

    I look forward to criticism, but please use plain language wherever possible.

    PPV and NPV:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_negative_predictive_values

    BT shows the futility of mammograms:
    http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/

    Bayesian Calculator:
    http://www.richardcarrier.info/bayescalculator.html

    • “high minimum wage will destroy the economy” “Destroy”? How about “hurt”? If raising the minimum wage is good for the economy then explain why it shouldn’t be raised to $1000 per hour?

      • If having government mandated health insurance is to prevent an individual’s financial collapse, why do we not have ‘affordable’ government mandated life insurance (for the children!) for the decedent’s survivors?

      • It will always take about a half hours wages, at minimum wage, to buy a gallon of milk. If the minimum wage were raised to $20.00/hour, it will only be a matter of time for this inflation of wages to work its way through. Viola! milk now costs 10 bucks a gallon and a Toyota will run you about $85 grand.
        After this inflation manifests itself, minimum wage earners won’t be able to live on the paltry $20.00 per hour. Minimum wage should be raised again to help these unfortunates.
        Or better yet, leave the teenager jobs to the teenagers and promote education.

      • Isn’t that a logical fallacy? I think it’s the ‘excluded middle’ or something like that. Minimum wage is negotiable, like most things. It can’t be $1/hr, and it can’t be $1,000/hr either. I have no training in economics, so I have to navigate those issues the best I can. I don’t pretend that I should be the one making the big decisions.

        In some countries, federal elections are every 4 years. I some, 3. In some, 5. Who is ‘right’? Etc…

      • @ Karim D. Ghantous, “Minimum wage is negotiable, like most things. It can’t be $1/hr, ….”

        No, there is absolutely no reason for government to impose a minimum wage in the first place. The only reason it exists and persists has little to do with how little money people are paid at the low end and everything to do with how much union people are paid, especially the ones at the high end. Most union contracts SCALE their pay against the minimum wage. When it is increased even the guy making $150K gets a big fat raise. Even the cheapest hamburger stand already pays above the minimum wage so those workers see no benefit from any increase to the minimum wage while the union steward can now afford to buy a second vacation home.

        But here’s who really loses the most… Say you had some disability and I was the only one willing to hire you for $5 an hour to, say, bag groceries or sweep floors – would you complain that that wasn’t enough money? There are many disabled people able to do useful work but the jobs they can perform are simply not worth the minimum and they are therefore not hired. So they sit at home all day on SSI plunging into depression because the federal government prevents them from being hired and performing ~something~ of value to make them feel productive, (as well as being out among the rest of us). I’m not saying they should have to live on that money, they should still be able to collect the same or almost as much SSI benefits but let them work if they can and want to – and most DO want to! The higher the minimum wage the more people like them are shut out of trying to lead a more normal life. That’s who is hurt the most by the minimum wage IMO – the ones incapable of producing at an artificially imposed cut-off.

    • Dear Mr. Ghantous,

      I admire your thoughtful and intelligent attempt to use Bayesian logic to attach a probability to the unsupported conjecture that is AGW. Unfortunately, all the mental gymnastics, as brilliant in itself as it is, proves exactly NOTHING. No cause –> effect at all, no evidence, that human CO2 does anything to drive climate.

      Verdict: Not proven.

      In case you missed it, here is my comment to you on this topic from above: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/#comment-1828344

      Thank you for being brave enough to share your thinking with us.

      Keep on posting! #(:))

      Janice

      • P.S. A clarification: my reply to you implies that you, Mr. Ghantous, were trying to prove that AGW conjecture is plausible. That would be merely an assumption on my part if I believed that to be true. The main reason for my two comments to you above is to make it very clear to uninformed readers that AGW has no evidence at all to support it and that assigning Bayesian odds to it does nothing to prove AGW.

        Actually, you did a great job of proving how unreasonable it is to bet any money on AGW — 1:10 odds of a “return” — not going to waste my money! And especially given that the speculated injury to be prevented would be benign at worst and likely (given, warmth supports life) beneficial.

      • Thanks, Janice! I agree with all that you said. There is no evidence that CO2 per se drives climate, or that it is harmful. Natural variability, in which CO2 is one part among many, seems to be the only plausible hypothesis which explains (most of) climate change.

        Usually, poor ideas cannot hide. BT does not investigate natural mechanisms per se, but despite that, it shows how easy it is to ‘pull back the curtain’, so to speak.

        I will watch that video later today.

      • Hi, Mr. Ghantous!

        Thanks for that. A man with your intellectual abilities will definitely enjoy Dr. Salby’s lecture. If you aren’t a scientist or technically trained person (I am not) you may want to listen to it more than once (I did). Well worth it!

        And if a certain Ferdinand Englebeen comes along to try to contradict Dr. Salby… don’t believe him, or, rather, listen to what scientists (real ones!) like Bart have to say if they make an appearance on WUWT to counter FE. FE is a nice guy, but, he is mistaken about CO2.

        Bye for now,

        Janice

    • Babsy, “life insurance” – heh heh… You buy “accident insurance” to pay you say, when have a loss from the result of an accident or “fire insurance” to pay you when you have a loss from the result of a fire. So the description “life insurance” does not describe what it actually is, “death insurance”, to pay you when you have a loss from the result of a death.

    • Very poor reasoning
      For example

      Supppose P(h|b) = 0.6, the other two values remain at .0.75

      Then if you do the calculations
      P = (0.6 x 0.75) / [(0.6 x 0.75) + (0.4 x 0.75)]
      P = 0.6

      So the value you get as a result of your calculations is identical to the value you assume for P(h|b)

      Which makes your entire argument pointless.

      • Thanks, David. But for P(h|b) to equal 0.6, which is relatively high, there has to be a good justification. I have not seen one. Values can indeed be approximate, but not arbitrary. They have to be reasonable, and derived impartially.

    • P = 0.1
      ====
      I changed assumption 1 to 0.2 and 0.3, and got the results P=0.2 and P=0.3.

      from this it seemed that we didn’t really learn anything by the approach?

      • Not proven, no. But there are reasons – not necessarily the best ones – why P(h|b) can’t equal much higher than 0.1, etc. These values cannot be arbitrary. One can’t decide them based on how much of an activist one feels on a given day. :-)

    • I did actually try to visit the link you gave, but C4 OD said I couldn’t watch it because I use AdBlock.

      I’m sure it’s corporate MSM fascist propaganda at its finest though. Problem is, more people watch that sort of thing than read blogs such as this. Hard to counter the huge advantage the global media has when it comes to access to people’s minds.

      And you’re absolutely right; none of this will stop them.

      I’m from the UK. When will they repeal the Climate Change Act? Answer – never. So, your point is well taken.

      • So the weather is getting worse AFTER they passed the Climate Change Act.

        Good thing they don’t pass a “Eliminate Poverty Act”; it would surely make poverty worse. Considering that the people living in poverty are the ones least able to escape the taxes required to end poverty.

        About the only solution governments have found to end poverty that seems to work is to make poverty a capital offense. Over time that seems to get rid of many of the poor. While hanging has largely been done away with, freezing remains a perfectly legal alternative.

  26. How long would the Pause have to continue before the IPCC decided to disband itself? 21 years, 25, 50 or a century?

      • Correct answer.

        Next question: where does the UN get its money and its position of power and so-called authority from?

        Always follow the money…

  27. I am grateful that the area (CET) I spend most of the time in, had warmest year since records begun 350 tears ago. So, what the highest ever Central England Temperature looks like compared to the past 20 years average, during the global warming pause (18.25 years)?

    • vukcevic
      January 4, 2015 at 2:12 am

      I see the labels on your two graphs for the Central English temperatures, but can’t follow your logic yet. The plots are for 2013 and 2014, right?
      But, how do today’s (the past two years) compare to the previous highs and lows for the CET as we rise from the 1650’s Little Ice Age? Should not it be expected that the Modern Warming Period be warmer than the Little Ice Age – Yet you show the two superimposed (apparently) by plotting the 2013 and 2014 running average with the CET’s normals, and displaying almost no differences.

      • Hi
        – yes it is CET for the last two years (max & min and a low pass filter smoothing daily oscillations)
        – this is then compared to last 20 years average (since now 2014 is complete) 1995 to 2014 inclusive (green line). It is obvious that first 7 months of 2014 (LP blue line) were substantially higher than the average, August was below the rest near average.
        – it should be noted that the last 20 year average closely follows (normalised) insolation, delayed by about a month.

        CET daily (max & min) are available since 1878, how they compare with the Little Ice Age daily max/min difficult to say (Tony Brown might be more informed on this aspect of the CET)
        However, Met office has monthly and annual data since 1659, which show 2014 as the warmest yet. One aspect of this is that summer temperatures since 1659 have oscillated, but overall trend is near 0C/century, while all the warming took place in the winter months, with an uptrend of about 0.4C/century.
        It also should be noted that the CET shows good correlation with N. Hemisphere and global temperatures (last two available only since 1880).
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
        In England in summer time land temperatures are considerably higher than nearby seas, mainly due to the TSI, zero trend would suggest that the TSI may have been constant.
        Winter temperatures tend to be higher when cloudy than when the sky is clear, and surrounding sea on average is warmer (crossover point for the averages is sometime in the late spring), one could conclude that degree of cloudiness is the ’warming force’. On first instance that brings in play the Svensmark’s hypothesis, but I would disagree. For number of years I’ve looked into an alternative and found considerable evidence (or at least correlation, yeas I know c is not c), then I came across this:
        “One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. ”
        http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
        Which is more or less what I found evidence of.

  28. Another fine post by Lord Monckton and very informative. One of the best in this series of posts in my opinion.

    I have seen many physicists and other scientists here say that we should be looking at energy rather than just temperature. This can be a little confusing at times to most of us, and so, “okulaer” has a post up explaining energy, heat, work, temperature, etc. and how they relate. It is sort of a thermodynamics 101 post. Read it if you sometimes get lost in the debates over temperature, energy, and heat.

    http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

    In regards to Lord Monckton citing Steve Goddard’s work: I think that was a most gracious thing to do. Good on you Lord Monckton.

    ~ Mark

    • markstoval: Another fine post by Lord Monckton and very informative. One of the best in this series of posts in my opinion.

      I agree. In my opinion, it was the best of a good lot.

  29. You have many good points Christopher, but I find this a little illogical.

    Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

    No one think that any extreme weather we now see is caused by the warming we have experienced in the last two decades. However, it is a fact that we experience very high global temperatures. Each year in the 21st century is exceptionally warm compared with what we have seen in the 19th and 20th century. The last two decades have been the warmest in several centuries.

    What we cannot rule out is that the heating we experienced in the second half of the 20th century was caused by anthropogenic global warming, and that some of the extreme weather is caused by that.

    I will also add that the RSS is the only dataset which show nil warming, the others show a slowdown, not a pause.

    /Jan

    • Jan, ‘exceptionally warm’ seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.

      I have lived long enough to collect my old age pension and I can say that there is nothing I see now in terms of weather, flood, drought or storm that I have not seen before.

      Oh, and it doesn’t seem warmer either. Imperceptible may be a better word.

      • ‘exceptionally warm’ seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.

        No it isn’t, even 2008, which globally was the coolest year since 2000, was warmer than any year before 1998. This means that any year since 2000 would have been hottest on record if they had occurred before 1998.

        See for example: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:13/plot/gistemp/mean:13
        and
        http://truecostblog.com/2012/09/09/list-of-warmest-years-on-record-globally/

        I think it is safe to label a “hottest on record year” as “exceptionally warm”

        /Jan

      • No it isn’t, even 2008, which globally was the coolest year since 2000, was warmer than any year before 1998.

        That may be true for some data sets, but not for RSS. Unless there was a minor change, 2008 only ranks 25.
        1 {1998, 0.550},
        2 {2010, 0.472},
        3 {2005, 0.33},
        4 {2003, 0.32},
        5 {2002, 0.315},
        6 2014: 0.255
        7 {2007, 0.253},
        8 {2001, 0.246},
        9 {2006, 0.231},
        10 {2009, 0.222},
        11 2013 0.218
        12 {2004, 0.202},
        13 2012: 0.187
        14 {1995, 0.159},
        15 {2011, 0.143},
        16 {1999, 0.104},
        17 {1997, 0.102},
        18 {1987, 0.099},
        19 {2000, 0.092},
        20 {1991, 0.081},
        21 {1990, 0.074},
        22 {1988, 0.066},
        23 {1983, 0.066},
        24 {1996, 0.047},
        25 2008 0.046
        26 {1994, 0.028},
        27 {1981, 0.022},
        28 {1980, 0.015},

    • Jan Kjetil Andersen

      You say

      What we cannot rule out is that the heating we experienced in the second half of the 20th century was caused by anthropogenic global warming, and that some of the extreme weather is caused by that.

      True, and we also “cannot rule out” that the center of the Moon is made of green cheese.

      But are such suggestions plausible? Frankly, no!

      Why postulate that “the heating we experienced in the second half of the 20th century was caused by anthropogenic global warming” when that warming was identical to the warming in the first half of the 20th century? The earlier warming could not have had an anthropogenic cause so why assume the latter warming does have an anthropogenic cause?

      How does “heating we experienced in the second half of the 20th century” cause “some of the extreme weather” of now? Please note that postulation of a time machine is not credible.

      Until you can provide credible answers to my questions then your suggestions remain as plausible as the center of the Moon being made of green cheese.

      Richard

      • Why postulate that “the heating we experienced in the second half of the 20th century was caused by anthropogenic global warming” when that warming was identical to the warming in the first half of the 20th century? The earlier warming could not have had an anthropogenic cause so why assume the latter warming does have an anthropogenic cause?

        Two reasons make it more plausible:

        1. The warming in the first and second half was not identical, look here:
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:13/plot/gistemp/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1890/to:1920.9/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1983.6/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1931/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
        The warming in the first half was between 0.3 to 0.4 C, depending on what period you use to average the temperature at the beginning of the century. The warming in the second half was close to 0.5 C.

        2. There were some emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O before 1950. The CO2 level had for instance grown from 270 to 300 ppm in 1950. This could account for some of the warming in the first half of the 20th century.
        IPCC estimates the total effect of all anthropogenic climate gases to 0.57 Watt/m2 in 1950. This translates to an expected warming in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 C.

        /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen

        I wrote

        Until you can provide credible answers to my questions then your suggestions remain as plausible as the center of the Moon being made of green cheese.

        You have NOT answered my questions but have attempted to claim

        The warming in the first and second half {of the twentieth century} was not identical,

        Nonsense! Your argument is based on cherry picking end dates. Dissect a HadCRUTn temperature time series into two halves and superpose them: they are the same except that one starts where the other ends.

        And you say

        There were some emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O before 1950. The CO2 level had for instance grown from 270 to 300 ppm in 1950. This could account for some of the warming in the first half of the 20th century.
        IPCC estimates the total effect of all anthropogenic climate gases to 0.57 Watt/m2 in 1950. This translates to an expected warming in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 C.

        And changes to cloud cover altered albedo such that in the latter quarter of the twentieth century the increased surface heating from the Sun was between 2 and 5 Watt/m2 which is between 4 to 10 times the estimated effect of all anthropogenic climate gases which you cite.

        You seem to be claiming that merely because something “could” be true you think that means the something is true.

        From your answer, can I assume you think the center of the Moon is made of green cheese?

        Richard

      • Oh, dear Richard Courtney,

        No, no warning intended. Just glad that you are feeling strong enough to post in your usual bold and

        energetic

        way.

        Keep it up in

        BLOCKQUOTES, BOLD, AND ALL CAPS!

        #(:))

        Your American Ally

        who loves blockquotes
        herself!

        Janice

    • Lets just ignore weather records/data, certainly in Australia, that show it was warmer at times in the 19th century than today. We should also remember that the Australian BoM likes to start their “records” from 1910, and “smudge” out anything that falls out on the warmer side in the past. Oh, lets not forget the fact the Aussie BoM changed the way they “come up” with a national average in 2013.

  30. Something like 50% of the warming seen to date is just the result of unjustified adjustments. 0.35C or so.

    When I say unjustified, I mean there were papers produced which made up excuses to justify certain adjustments, but when it came time to implement the justified adjustments, all they did was just randomly adjust all of the data upward regardless of what the excuse was.

    I don’t know why anyone would operate a meteorological station anymore unless they were getting paid to do it. They are just going to change all your records anyway.

    Like Berkeley Earth temperatures makes 26 adjustments to the Amundsen Scott station in Antarctica despite the fact that the data is already quality controlled and is taken by at least 50 well-trained scientists risking their lives in the Antarctic winter and 200 well-trained scientists in the balmy summers. I mean if they have to adjust Amundsen Scott, they are adjusting every record everywhere.

    They will continue doing so until someone stops paying them to make up warming trends to justify their theory. If the theory was correct, there would be no need to randomly adjust all records up by 0.35C.

  31. >> I mean if they have to adjust Amundsen Scott, they are adjusting every record everywhere.<<

    And that's exactly what is about to happen:
    >>In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism uses techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist’s).<<
    Reminds me of a certain Mann et al

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29

  32. As an aside on temperatures, I just heard on my local TV news a prediction that we will have a record high in Orlando today and will have a record low tonight. I wonder what temperature will be recorded for today in the great cheat sheet data sets.

      • …. wait-a-minute…. that was Mark Bofill who didn’t call his mom, wasn’t it. Oops. I’ll try to be more careful, so I won’t have to remark like this.

  33. Let me pull a quote from an article written by retired physicist Jeff Glassman in December 2007:

    Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.

    AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying ‘most scientists believe…,’ it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.

    AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.

    And there’s much, much more.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.

    [Emphasis added.]

  34. I too am extremely skeptical of alarmist “global warming” claims, and come here often for what usually appears to be a reasonably neutral, unbiased take on “the science.” This time, however, I was stopped cold by one word that really threw me: “communist.”

    Really? Is that what it’s all about: communism? Is the climate debate going to take us back to the McCarthy era, is that really where we want to go? Hasn’t this issue already become far too politicized?

    I’m sorry but I see no relation whatsoever between communism and climate change and the mention of this word in the context of what otherwise looks like a very reasonable argument made me wonder what exactly it was I was reading and what the motives behind it were.

    • Because you see nothing means little. Central government control and taxation are not conspiracy theory; but innate in governmental agenda worldwide. Taxing the air you breath is not a conspiracy, but a fact. Books have been written on this. I suggest you start with “Blue Planet in Green shackles.”.

      • It would be rather simplistic to suggest that it’s all about communism. My contention is exactly the opposite. CAGW has taken root as a confluence of interests between crony capitalists and crony socialists. That said, the initial strategy to fight CAGW was in fact a transfer of wealth from wealthy countries to poor ones:

        “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
        ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

  35. The once a year update on arctic ice is out for 2014:
    Yearly Max/mean/minimum trend per decade (with previous years 2013 , 2012 comparison)
    -2.552% (-2.574% , -2.63%) : Max
    -3.904% (-3.946% , -4.01%) : Mean
    -8.79% (-8.951% , -9.04%) : Minimum

  36. “Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.”

    Simple to us yes but to them nothing is simple when they realized that they have painted themselves into a corner. They hang their hat on the last 18 years as having been “the warmest on record” and then attempt to connect some metric of weather extremity within that period to it. But they find that there are no instances of weather extreme that cannot be shown to have happened past cooler periods with equal or “worse” effect. Neither hurricanes, nor tornadoes, droughts, floods, snow fall, heat waves, cold snaps show much of any correlation to small changes in global temperature at all and for the ones that show slight correlation, it appears to be anti-correlated to warming, (as most meteorologists would have secretly predicted).

    Nowhere in their past predictions of dire consequences have I ever seen one claiming that things would first get a little better with a “little more” warming and THEN start to become worse with any further warming after that.

    They would have been wise to have been more divisive in that way but no, wisdom is not their strong suit; “simple” is in the eyes of the beholder. Attempting to turn back time and erase history are not simple matters.

  37. With respect to Steve Goddard’s Fig. 4, we must give the devil his due. There is another possible explanation than warming bias. He’s using the US HCN data set, which is regional, to the RSS and UAH datasets which are global. So if there were regional differences between the US and global temperature patterns (e.g. the polar vortex of the last couple of winters), one would expect an apparent warm bias.

    NOAA maintains a global historical climate network (GHCN). It would be interesting to see the same set of difference plots for RSS, UAH and GISS against GHCN. Has anyone done that?

    • In which post are you referring to? RSS and UAH can be gridded locally as well, and SG often does.

    • To echo and (if I did not misunderstand him) emphasize what David A just said (1/6/15 at 0133), my understanding is
      that the comparison is
      between
      the temperatures each dataset records (versus the observed data)
      at the same locations,
      NOT the average temperature of each entire data set.

  38. The “hiding in the ocean” explanation of the failure of climate projection models is analogous to Enron’s claim that the difference between the projected net income and the actual net income was actually a measure of wealth that had gone directly onto the balance sheet without being observed on the income statement. The misallocation of resources that resulted from the Enron debacle is trivial compared to that which is ongoing in the crusade against liberty and prosperity that we are dealing with here.

    Giving these people everything they want could turn out to be the biggest mistake our species has ever made.

  39. Amplifying an earlier comment – the discussion needs to move on from discussing a pause to discussing the cooling trend because in fact we have had 11 years of cooling see
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
    see my post
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    for details and cooling forecasts. This shows that the late 20th century rise is simply the rise to the peak of the millennial cycle which peaked in the RSS series at 2003.6 give or take a couple of weeks no doubt.
    This corresponds to the peak in the solar activity driver seen at about 1991 in Fig 14 of the linked post. There is about a 12 year lag between the driver peak and the RSS peak. The lag will vary according to the climate metric used and the region under consideration.
    For convenience WUWT skeptics might wish to celebrate the anniversary of peak heat which I calculate as 4th July 2003 at about 4pm.
    .

  40. richardscourtney January 4, 2015 at 6:40 am

    Nonsense! Your argument is based on cherry picking end dates.

    Take a look at them Richard. You see there is a dip around 1900. To start there without taking any average at the beginning is really cherry picking.
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/mean:13/plot/gistemp/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1890/to:1920.9/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1983.6/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1931/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend

    And changes to cloud cover altered albedo such that in the latter quarter of the twentieth century the increased surface heating from the Sun was between 2 and 5 Watt/m2

    Where have you found this theory? Can you please give me a link?

    From your answer, can I assume you think the center of the Moon is made of green cheese?

    Hm, no I find that rather implausible.

    Richard, I think it is ok to use such a rhetoric one time, I can tolerate some sarcasm, but two times in a row starts to look rather inane to me.

    /Jan

    • Jan, Norman Page provided you with the link.
      The study is based on indisputable data.
      Decrease in clouds—>decrease in cloud albedo—>increased insolation which more than accounts for the late warming trend circa 1980-97.
      This study utterly demolishes all argument for AGW.
      So, relax, have a beer or sip some vin by the fireside and reflect on the blessings of increased atmospheric CO2 and enjoy a longer, happier life.

      • Jan, Norman Page provided you with the link.
        The study is based on indisputable data.
        Decrease in clouds—>decrease in cloud albedo—>increased insolation which more than accounts for the late warming trend circa 1980-97.
        This study utterly demolishes all argument for AGW.

        That is a strong claim, but I don’t think the paper proof anything at all.
        First of all, the paper is written by John McLean who also predicted that 2011 would be cold:http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

        This paper concludes with claiming that:

        Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained
        shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud
        to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread.

        However, no cause is given for why there has been a shift in the Enso conditions or cloud cover.
        I remind that Enso refers to the effects of a band of sea surface temperatures which are anomalously warm or cold for long periods of time.

        How can anyone think that the reason for the long term trend in the temperature increase of the air and sea is that the sea temperature is increasing?
        That is pretty like saying that the sea temperature increases because the sea temperature increases. So now we know.

        Perhaps you can also find a study which says that the reason for the high air temperature we record is that the air temperature is high nowadays.

        John McLean may have right here that the cloud cover has decreased and the Enso has shifted, but makes no difference. He has to find the underlying causes for those changes before he can say that this is an alternative explanation to the warming.

        /Jan

      • Mpainter….

        Doesn’t a question like that, pointed directly at a commenter violate the policy of this site?

        Specifically…“Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.”
        ..
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/

      • ” …. may find their posts deleted …. ” suggests a certain … flexibility … in the policy. Like guidelines as it were.

      • Because Jan, if you haven’t, you might consider getting one; it couldn’t hurt and it might help.

    • Jan Kjetil Andersen

      Please explain why you questioned me on a statement I made in A DIFFERENT SUB-THREAD. It is only by chance that I noticed your questioning here, and my failure to answer could be misunderstood as inability to answer.

      I thank Dr Norman Page for his provision of the answer.

      Your reply to that answer says

      That is a strong claim, but I don’t think the paper proof anything at all.
      First of all, the paper is written by John McLean who also predicted that 2011 would be cold:http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

      So, not being right about one thing means a person is wrong about another. Well, that means we can reject all the works of Albert Einstein!

      Not content with that, you continue your ‘moon is made of green cheese’ type of argument saying

      John McLean may have right here that the cloud cover has decreased and the Enso has shifted, but makes no difference. He has to find the underlying causes for those changes before he can say that this is an alternative explanation to the warming.

      No! The fact that there was more heating from MEASURED changes to cloud cover IS A COMPLETE EXPLANATION of the global warming for the reason you are challenging; i.e. I wrote

      And changes to cloud cover altered albedo such that in the latter quarter of the twentieth century the increased surface heating from the Sun was between 2 and 5 Watt/m2 which is between 4 to 10 times the estimated effect of all anthropogenic climate gases which you cite.

      Importantly, I made a point of logic and repeated it and I have again repeated it in this post. That point is not “rhetoric” and is not “sarcasm”. It is a demonstration of your irrational assertions which induced mpainter to question your brain function.

      I note that your apparently insane comments are supported by David Socrates, and that support combined with your starting another sub-thread induces me to wonder if that apparent insanity is pretended.

      Richard

      • Please explain why you questioned me on a statement I made in A DIFFERENT SUB-THREAD.

        Sorry for that Richard, the only excuse I have is that I am not so used to using this new thread format.

        So, not being right about one thing means a person is wrong about another. Well, that means we can reject all the works of Albert Einstein!

        Einstein was brilliant. I think his Nobel Prize winning paper about the Photoelectric effect is one of the most elegant bits of research ever. A quite simple experiment, which proved that x-rays exhibits the properties of particles. He later drew the conclusions from, among other the Lorentz transforms, and formulated the relativity theory which changed physics forever.

        On the other hand, the man behind this paper is known to have predicted that 2011 would be the coldest year globally since 1956. He based this prediction on a peculiar idea he has about the ENSO as a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature. This idea is not shared with many other scientists and it therefore came as no surprise that the 2011 prediction turned out to be utterly nonsense.

        He therefore has a rather bad track record and a comparison with Einstein is rather unfair for both of them.

        John McLean may have right here that the cloud cover has decreased and the Enso has shifted, but makes no difference. He has to find the underlying causes for those changes before he can say that this is an alternative explanation to the warming.
        No! The fact that there was more heating from MEASURED changes to cloud cover IS A COMPLETE EXPLANATION of the global warming for the reason you are challenging

        And what caused the cloud cover to change?

        I note that your apparently insane comments are supported by David Socrates, and that support combined with your starting another sub-thread induces me to wonder if that apparent insanity is pretended.

        Are you calling me insane?
        I think that is rather hash words Richard. Why start throwing insults? I cannot see that you have any reason for using that aggression. If I have insulted you please explain where. I hope you choose your words with more modesty when you talk to people face to face.

        /Jan

      • Jan,
        Sorry, fellow, your excuses about confusing the threads does not wash.
        Unless you are a very confused fellow, indeed….hmmm
        In fact, thinking about it, I accept the excuse that you offered to Richard Courtney as the truth.

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen

        I have NOT thrown any “insults”.

        You ask me

        Are you calling me insane?

        NO. Read what I wrote.
        I have repeatedly pointed out that your illogical assertions are based on your insane claim that ‘when something “cannot be ruled out” then it must be true’. And I demonstrated that your claim is insane by pointing out that one cannot rule out that the center of the Moon is made of green cheese so – according to your claim – the center of the Moon must be made of green cheese. Subsequently, I have repeatedly called your arguments based on your insane claim ‘Moon made of green cheese’ arguments.

        Importantly, I wrote

        I note that your apparently insane comments are supported by David Socrates, and that support combined with your starting another sub-thread induces me to wonder if that apparent insanity is pretended.

        Your question I am answering twists my words from clear statement that “your comments are apparently insane” to being an accusation that I am calling you insane. NO! I clearly stated that I think the insanity of your comments is pretended; i.e. you are a disruptive troll posting only utter nonsense as a method to disrupt the thread.

        And you provide another insane assertion when you assert that you consider the value of information is dependent on your opinion of who provides it. NO! Your opinion on such things is worthless because it is insane. Information exists to be challenged: insulting or applauding the provider of information says nothing about the worth of the information.

        Also, your switching sub-thread ploy failed so your worthless and ridiculous comments have been completely refuted. Therefore, I suggest you troll somewhere else.

        Richard

      • And in all of this Jan escapes from his initial unsupported and deeply wrong claim that CO2 caused an increase in extreme weather events.
        ————————————————————-
        Jan, please show your evidence for the C in CAGW.

      • David A

        You ask the troll

        And in all of this Jan escapes from his initial unsupported and deeply wrong claim that CO2 caused an increase in extreme weather events.
        ————————————————————-
        Jan, please show your evidence for the C in CAGW.

        Indeed, but the troll made no claim that he has any such evidence. Instead, he here made this insane assertion

        What we cannot rule out is that the heating we experienced in the second half of the 20th century was caused by anthropogenic global warming, and that some of the extreme weather is caused by that.

        I refuted that saying

        True, and we also “cannot rule out” that the center of the Moon is made of green cheese.

        But are such suggestions plausible? Frankly, no!

        etc.

        He had no evidence. He did not claim to have any evidence. And he has no evidence.

        He has only provided insane assertions because that is all he has.

        Richard

      • David A

        Yes, check & mate, but refuting trolls is more important than a mere game: a troll cannot learn but onlookers may be informed.

        In this case, the troll was pushing the “cannot be ruled out” ploy.
        You and I may recognise that the ploy is a denial of rational consideration. However, many people think “cannot be ruled out” is cogent, and that is why they buy tickets in the National Lottery each week.

        This troll needed demolition because he was promoting the insanity of thinking anything which “cannot be ruled out” requires action, and that insanity can seem cogent to many.

        Richard

      • Richard and David, good for you that you have found each other. Perhaps you should socialize in real life too? You know face to face and not in front of a computer. If you go out in the real world you may discover that people may roll their eyes when you claim that there is no evidence for human caused climate changes.

        Because a benefit with visiting blogs and discussing topics you are interested in with people with similar ideas can also be a curse. The benefit is to meet similar minded people and you may find that stimulating, but the curse is that you may not recognize that you have been part of a very marginal group.

        You meet others on a blog, cheering each other up and quickly biting off any opposable views as insane and the opponents as someone who need lobotomy. People who turn to that antisocial behavior tend to have used too much time in front of a computer and too little time with real people.

        Let me also go back to the topic of discussion and state some facts:
        1. It is a fact that the temperature has increased and that the last decades has been the warmest in several hundred years.
        2. It is a fact that the CO2 level is the highest in at least 800 000 years, probably 35 million years.
        3. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If the Earth had no greenhouse gases the average temperature on Earth would be about 33 degrees Celsius lower than it is today.

        Virtually all scientists in the world agree on the points above. As far as I have seen Lord Monckton and
        Anthony also agrees on this. To call it insane doesn’t help. Most people just laugh of those who deny this.

        I will not hold you here anymore because I find this discussion very tiresome and because I really mean you
        should turn off the computer, go out and meet the world.

        /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen January 6, 2015 at 11:56 am

        If you go out in the real world you may discover that people may roll their eyes when you claim that there is no evidence for human caused climate changes.
        —————————————————
        Oh no, not this one again. On the other thread, where the appeal to authority was to “most people”, Jan came up with a computer model for concrete degradation. I kid you not.

        Come on Jan, pray tell what is the evidence. Ask any of your eye-rolling friends for help, and when they can’t do it, please instruct them that eye-rolling does not count as scientific data.

        I fully expect a stupid evasive response but, as Richard says, this is for onlookers watching you get your ass kicked, not you.

      • philincalifornia says: January 6, 2015 at 12:11 pm

        Come on Jan, pray tell what is the evidence.

        Evidence for What?
        I remind you that I started this thread by saying that I found Moncktons claim illogical , when he says:

        Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

        This claim looks like an attempt to falsify of the theory that some of the recent extreme weather can be explained by global warming.

        I do not need to prove that recent extreme weather has been caused by global warming to disprove Moncktons claim. I only have to prove that his claim doesn’t hold as a falsification.

        My argument is that since we know that the last decade has been the warmest decade in several centuries we cannot rule out that there is a causal effect between the recent extreme weather event and this high temperature. The fact that the temperature rise in the last 15 years has been small, or nil, does not change this.

        /Jan

      • philincalifornia

        The strongest validation of an hypothesis is that it makes valid prediction.

        Your hypothesis that the troll had pretended to have evidence which he lacks induced your prediction that said to the troll

        I fully expect a stupid evasive response but, as Richard says, this is for onlookers watching you get your ass kicked, not you.

        That prediction was because the troll had written

        If you go out in the real world you may discover that people may roll their eyes when you claim that there is no evidence for human caused climate changes.

        and you had replied by quoting that statement verbatim and asking for its justification by writing

        Come on Jan, pray tell what is the evidence. Ask any of your eye-rolling friends for help, and when they can’t do it, please instruct them that eye-rolling does not count as scientific data.

        The troll began his stupid evasive response by asking

        philincalifornia says: January 6, 2015 at 12:11 pm

        Come on Jan, pray tell what is the evidence.

        Evidence for What?

        There could not be a more stupid and more evasive response from the troll than a question as to what the troll had said which had been quoted verbatim and the troll had been asked to justify!

        Quad Erat Demonstrandum

        Richard

      • A good debate can be inspiring, something to learn from, and perhaps others can learn from you.

        This is the opposite. You seem not to understand my arguments and you don’t contribute with anything.

        Throwing out words like “insane”, “stupid” and “troll” does not make up for and arguments with substance.

        So have me excused, I have better things to do. I’m out of this.

        /Jan

      • Jan,

        Mr RichardSCourtney has yet to add anything positive to the discussions in this forum. All he does is play little word games with posters that do not toe the WUWT line. Take it as a honor to be called a “troll” by him. It means he has has resorted to his only means of argument, namely ad-hominen name calling.

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen

        You say to me

        A good debate can be inspiring, something to learn from, and perhaps others can learn from you.

        This is the opposite. You seem not to understand my arguments and you don’t contribute with anything.

        Surely you jest!
        You have only presented insane assertions and you have provided no “arguments” – none, zilch, nada – while I have contributed logical argument to refute each and every of the insane assertions.

        My refutations induced David A to assess my logical demolition of your daft assertions by saying

        check & mate (-;

        As for you being supported by the ludicrous troll, David Socrates, I remind that I said to you

        I note that your apparently insane comments are supported by David Socrates, and that support combined with your starting another sub-thread induces me to wonder if that apparent insanity is pretended.

        Importantly, you and that other troll ignore that you changed sub-thread in attempt to avoid discussion of my having cited albedo evidence when I wrote

        And changes to cloud cover altered albedo such that in the latter quarter of the twentieth century the increased surface heating from the Sun was between 2 and 5 Watt/m2 which is between 4 to 10 times the estimated effect of all anthropogenic climate gases which you cite.

        Jan Kjetil Andersen, that is evidence. It is information people can learn from. It demolished your assertion. You tried a trick to avoid, it and you now insanely assert that I “don’t contribute with anything”.

        You have provided your latest insane assertion – supported by Socrates – as a method to deflect from the fact that philincalifornia asked you a question about what you had written and he made this correct prediction

        I fully expect a stupid evasive response but, as Richard says, this is for onlookers watching you get your ass kicked, not you.

        Onlookers can and will learn from your failure to answer the question from philincalifornia which was

        Come on Jan, pray tell what is the evidence {for human-caused climater change}. Ask any of your eye-rolling friends for help, and when they can’t do it, please instruct them that eye-rolling does not count as scientific data.

        Richard

  41. “As the Pope unwisely prepares to abandon forever the political neutrality that his office enjoins upon him, and to put his signature to a climate-Communist encyclical largely drafted by the radical Prefect of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Mgr. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Almighty continues to display a sense of humor.”

    Though I do believe that God is, indeed, showing us his true sense of humor, I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church, or any other church, has ever been very politically neutral irrespective of any of their stated internal policies. Depends upon who is running the show.

  42. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
    On February 15 ’15 it will be 451 years from the birth in Pisa, Italia, of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642); The first scientist.
    And the catholic church are about to make the same mistake again?
    I’m one member they’re gonna loose.

  43. This was another excellent post and monthly synopsis from Christopher Monkton, in a series I have been following for several months now.

    Also a great read and some fascinating discussions in the comments.

    The whole thing about global averaged temperatures and gridding, etc., has done my head in before so I won’t go there! Let alone now they’re bringing in different strata in the ocean which don’t thermodynamically communicate with each other. That’s like three dimesional nija chess man!

    Personally, I’m always suspicious when something appears to defy the the laws of physics.

    As for the pope, well… I think everyone who is anyone (hint: it’s not you and me) is jockeying for position in the next, new, shiny world-order banking system, government sytem, religion and monetary system. If climate change can become a world religion then surely all religious leaders of “all faiths” can “come together” and drink the Cool-Aid. It’s for the children!.

    Bottom line: it doesn’t matter what you believe anymore. You just have to obey the new order. Got it?

  44. With all due respect, I live just above ground, not in the troposphere (where only hot air baloonists spend some time, once in a while),

    • The troposphere extends to the ground, so you do live there, and the minor surface warming we have seen has been, in conjunction with CO2, hugely beneficial.

    • You live outside! Wow! Tropics? Most of us here probably live in a structure designed to protect us from the atmosphere. :) Cave men as cave can be. Cheers!

  45. I forgot to add that the headline graph is displayed and updated every month at my “workstation” over the last several months.

    I like RSS because it is from space, platinum resistance thermometers, etc.. It is measuring the earth as a whole. What is there not to like? As another contributor mentioned, surely this should be the best test of the models – lower tropospheric hotspot and all that?

    This kind of fact – the 18 year pause – is something that is, generally speaking, simply missing in the official climate narrative. Making people aware of this is something I do to the point it annoys them, and then I stop (I have to work with these people).But it has become a monthly ritual of late, to replace last month’s graph (at my workstation) with the latest from the good Lord Monkton.

  46. I have to say that is only in the benefit of the large public to have more sides of the climate change story. And I am not sure that scientist even have the same opinion, so it is really great that more and more people share their views. My opinion is that oceans have a big contribution in the climate change and that, by affecting the oceans with their wars, humans affected climate (see http://www.1ocean-1climate.com). There are many that do not agree with me, but I think is it very important that people realize that global warming may be a problem.

  47. diogenesnj January 4, 2015 at 6:48 am

    NOAA maintains a global historical climate network (GHCN). It would be interesting to see the same set of difference plots for RSS, UAH and GISS against GHCN. Has anyone done that?

    Really? Is the GHCN data raw or based on adjusted data? I would hardly trust NOAA historical data based on the fact they scrub the past and “adjust” data to support the meme. Thank God for the wayback!

  48. Actually the RSS temperature trend is 0.12 C/decade if you go back to 1980 (12-month moving average).

  49. Lots of arguments, name calling,demonizing, professional jealously, posturing, turf protecting, useless charts and graphics, accusations, desperate mathematical juggling, face saving, money grabbing…all of which from a group who will not admit their 1980s prophecies grow cold. So tiresome and insignificant it is. Can anyone stand in their own place in life and see an ounce of catastrophic global warming climate change disruption? All mud throwing to see what sticks. Preach it till they believe it. Happy New Year! (debate blended Scotch vs single malt, its more fun) :)

  50. The heat is hiding in the deep ocean contradicts the warmists assertion that there that there is very limited mixing of the deep ocean and the surface ocean. If there is significant mixing of the deep ocean and the surface ocean the anthropogenic emitted CO2 would be mitigated by the large deep ocean sink.

    As noted in this thread summary there is no physical explanation as how heat could move into the deep ocean.

    The warmists are ignoring an observational paradox. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, planetary temperature is not. A plateau in warming, as opposed a reduction in the slope of warming creates the paradox.

    There are periods in the paleo record of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 was high and the planet was cold and visa verse. That observational fact supports the assertion that there is something fundamental incorrect with AGW theory. (Part of the error is warmist assumption that the planet amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback). There is direct observational evidence that planet resists forcing changes negative feedback.)

    The tropical troposphere at 8km has not warmed due to CO2 increase which supports the assertion that there is something in the upper troposphere that is inhibiting the AWG mechanism in that region of the atmosphere. The tropical troposphere warming is a key signature of AGW and is a major source of the AGW forcing. The tropical troposphere warming if it occurred would warm the tropics due to infrared downward radiation.

    The CO2 mechanism is saturated in the lower atmosphere. The most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase was predicted at 8km in the tropical troposphere as there is less water higher in the atmosphere (water vapour reduces the CO2 forcing as it shares an absorption frequency band) and there are less CO2 molecules higher in the atmosphere initially due to the reduction in density with elevation.

  51. To highfly 56433,
    You are right, I live under the tropics (7° N), so does my garden, many plants there don’t like it when it gets too hot : 33° is fine, 36 is not, and they start wilting.

  52. FTA: “It is still unclear how the heat is transferring to the deeper ocean.”

    The Immaculate Convection. Every good religion needs a miracle or two.

  53. To highflIGHT 56433 (sorry for the earlier typo).
    Try it with rice : beyond 35°, grain filling is severely affected (impacted?).

  54. Meanwhile down under, Antarctic sea ice is soaring way above 2SDs around the recent mean, just as the “hottest year on record” ends:

    And the South Pacific looks set for a La Niña development in 2015.

    • Phlogiston, since we’re trusting the NSIDC today, what do they have to say about Arctic sea ice extent?

      • You won’t find anyone here who disbelieves recent Arctic ice decline. The record of this starts generally at 1979, conveniently for some since before that year it had been increasing for a couple of decades.

      • Phlogiston,

        The NSIDC for the Arctic plot shows the same date range as the Antarctic, 1981:

        KNMI has data back to November ’79 for both. I get losing the last two months of that year, but why 1980? Not full enough seasonal cycles that early in the record perhaps? Data quality?

        Ancillary questions all. My main point is of course that once again we’re seeing opposite things at opposite poles and this year the Arctic trend looks to be headed toward peeking out of the 2-sigma envelope. As well, my obligatory warmista reminder that over the record from 1979 the net loss of ice area [1] is ~3% for both poles combined. The better comparator would be ice volume, but unfortunately there isn’t a readily available PIOMAS-like volume calculation for the Antarctic that I know of. I gather that this is because fancy robo-subs aside, Antarctic sea ice thickness is still considered too poorly estimated to publish a regular time series. Conventional wisdom still maintains that Antarctic sea ice is thinner by virtue of the fact that it’s not surrounded by land and is therefore much freer to spread out in extent in a way that’s not comparably indicative to the Arctic in terms of total actual ice.

        I don’t know what the net loss figure would be if I had it at the ready, but for the Arctic it’s impressive: 40.5% estimated volume loss against a 14.8% estimated loss in area. The Antarctic gain in area is 11.0%, but the ice is maybe half as thick on average or less? I really do wish I knew that answer. [2]

        Final nudge to not forget about the land ice. According to GRACE, the NH is still the hands-down winner with Greenland liquefying over three and a half times faster than Antarctica in terms of Gigatonnes of mass over the period 2004-2013 which is the latest data I can coax out of KNMI. It’s roughly 290 Gt/yr for Greenland, 80 Gt/yr for Antarctica. So, whatever confluence of factors is causing the Southern Ocean freeze more in the winter down under, just a tad further south where one would also naively expect things to be cooler, the ice shelves and fully landed stuff doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo.

        ——————

        [1] Ice area, not ice extent. I’m not a fan of the ice extent calculation because it feels black box to me — if 15% of some unknown to me grid square is covered in ice, it’s counted as fully covered. I therefore consider the ice area figures to be the more conservative estimate, if not perhaps more accurate.

        [2] It would be nice if I could get a whole-world ice index in comparable units of mass and/or volume, separated out by region, not anomalized so that I could do direct percentage comparisons like I can with PIOMAS. The ‘G’ in AGW stands for global, and I tire of the consensus team giving me partial data — either anecdotally by press release or in nasty unit conversion ways so that I can’t readily get the Big Picture view of what’s happening on balance. This drives me to nearly much distraction as contrarian tunnel vision of favored metrics. If I can’t find such an index, I may just have to roll my own.

  55. With Antarctica Sea Ice at record high deviation ,global sea surface temp. no longer rising especially S.H. global snow cover at least average, AGW in my opinion is already obsolete. Next shoe to drop will be a well definitive global temp. decline which will finally end this ridiculous stupid theory.
    I expect a decline in global temperatures starting in year 2015 and continuing for several years to come in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions which should intensify going forward.

  56. My Lord Monckton may wish to correct an error in “Reference 1” which currently reads “Accessed 1 July 2014” – a non-credible date, since Figure 1 (based on it) refers to December 2014 data – being 18 years 3 months since the start of October 1996.

  57. Thanks again for the monthly update and with the la-nina that will probably happen in 2015 it will still be getting longer. All those hoping for a natural el-nino variation to save their models and break the run must be sobbing in their drinks.

    Maybe in the future you could include a “How long has it been with temperatures falling” graph. Playing around with woodfortrees I’m getting 7-10 years depending on the dataset but I have not done the statistical significance part.

    Thanks again.

    PS. Might I suggest an elephant ride into Paris seeing as you’ve already done the sky dive thing :)

  58. What are the current pause lengths in the other 3 (UAH, GISS, HADCRUT)? If memory serves RSS is the longest, but the rest are over 13 years.

  59. Mr. Monckton,

    Could you expand on the bit at the end about ocean temperatures? You said that converting to temperature change is “highly revealing”, but did not explain what it reveals. All we are left with is the vague notion that perhaps a 0.037 K increase in 94 months (assuming your calculations are correct) is not that much, which, left unexplained, strikes a similar vein to the “CO2 only occupies x% of the atmosphere” argument as solely an appeal to small numbers.

    Thank you.

    • It reveals that their is no “C” in CAGW. A 0.037 K increase n the ocean T, will not raise the atmospheric T by more then that. In the mean time the benefits of CO2 increase will continue.

    • It reveals that their is no “C” in CAGW.

      I’m not so sure that one factoid alone can prove or disprove such a thing.

      A 0.037 K increase n the ocean T, will not raise the atmospheric T by more then that.

      Perhaps not. But steadily increasing ocean temperatures does seem to reveal that global warming has not paused at all, does it not? Aren’t the oceans part of the globe? I think it would be even more revealing to compare Joules to Joules here, to account for mass and specific heat capacities.

      In 2001 this paper was published (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/267.short) finding anomalies of 18.2 x 10^22 J (ocean) and 0.66 x 10^22 J (air) from 1955-2001. Considering just these two things, the total heat imbalance then would be 18.86 x 10^22 J from 1955-2001, or about 4.1 x 10^22 per decade.

      Mr. Monckton states that over 94 months 2005-2013 the oceans absorbed 10 x 10^22 J. So by his own figure (and assuming 0 warming of the atmosphere), the heat imbalance is now rising at 12.8 x 10^22 J per decade.

      So by his own figure, global warming has accelerated, seemingly contradicting his opening statement “Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all”.

      Curiously enough, he left that last bit out of his post.

      • “Themaster15” should not be silly. The head posting chiefly concerns itself with the rate of global warming. If – and it is a big if – the rate of global warming during eight years of record global CO2 emissions is equivalent to just under 0.5 K/century, then there is no climate crisis.

      • Mr. Monckton,

        Thank you for taking the time to respond. You may be correct that 0.5 K per century of atmospheric warming is nothing to worry about. It seems to me though that an accelerating intake of heat (my definition of “global warming”) cannot be good even if the oceans and ice sheets are absorbing it all at the present time. I am sure you can see why, from a thermodynamics perspective, the claim global warming has stopped while it has actually accelerated strikes me as odd.

      • “Themaster15” has failed to understand that there are fewer uncertainties in establishing global air temperature change than in attempting to estimate global ocean temperature change. Each ARGO buoy has to cover some 300,000 cu. km of ocean. As Willis Eschenbach has pointed out, this is equivalent to taking a single temperature and salinity profile of the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year and expecting to obtain reliable and useful results.

        We have no idea whether ocean heat content is increasing as NOAA says it is, or at all. ARGO is the least ill-resolved method we have, and it does not show ocean heat content rising anything like as fast as NOAA would like us to believe. As the head posting points out, the NOAA estimate of ocean heat content change is extreme, and appears unwarranted by measurement. It seems to be the result of modeling, not of measuring.

        At present we do not have enough resolution in measuring ocean temperatures to know whether they are increasing or not. However, if RSS are right in finding that there has been no global warming of the air for 18 years 3 months, then it is very likely that there has been no global warming of the oceans over the same period.

      • At 2:01 PM on 7 January, Monckton of Brenchley had observed:

        We have no idea whether ocean heat content is increasing as NOAA says it is, or at all. ARGO is the least ill-resolved method we have, and it does not show ocean heat content rising anything like as fast as NOAA would like us to believe. As the head posting points out, the NOAA estimate of ocean heat content change is extreme, and appears unwarranted by measurement. It seems to be the result of modeling, not of measuring.

        At present we do not have enough resolution in measuring ocean temperatures to know whether they are increasing or not. However, if RSS are right in finding that there has been no global warming of the air for 18 years 3 months, then it is very likely that there has been no global warming of the oceans over the same period.

        Mr. Monckton seems to be putting it too goddam charitably. The NOAA claim that “greenhouse gas” thermal energy is somehow transiting the surface and photic levels of the ocean to descend, in the style of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms directly into the hadropelagic zone without raising the temperatures of the liquid volumes immediately beneath the keels of oceangoing vessels is…well, let’s say extraordinary, not to mention friggin’ preposterous.

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in order to be received as anything less than blowin’-it-out’n-yer-tochus fantasmagorical, right?

        Given Mr. Eschenbach‘s homely but illuminating comment about the ARGO system’s coverage of the oceans’ 300,000 cubic kilometers of volume as being equivalent to checking one temperature reading and a single aliquot of the water off Thunder Bay, Ontario, for a measure of electrolytes and claiming that these measurements represent the whole of Lake Superior throughout the course of a year, and the ARGO buoy system gives NOAA the best possible instrumental assessment of deep-ocean temperatures and haline characteristics with THAT set of observations showing dit in the way of warming, then any allegedly competent technical “expert” on any federal government payroll who pushes a bootless, rootless, blankly unsupported claim of miraculous deep-ocean warming as if it’s a matter of fact is very likely committing malfeasance in public office, and should be investigated with an eye to prosecution.

        I’d like see these critters constrained for ten or fifteen years to report temperature and relative humidity readings from secure residence within the penal facilities maintained by our federal government in Leavenworth, Kansas.

      • Given that the “global warming” lacks the properties of a measure in the mathematical theory of measure (see my Jan. 6 at 9:27 am post for proof ), does the claim that “there has been no global warming” mean what people think it means? I doubt it. I think people take the “global warming” to be an example of a measure for it sounds as though it is the difference between two temperatures and this difference is an example of a measure.

      • ” does the claim that “there has been no global warming” mean what people think it means? ”

        You are confused about the misinterpretation.
        ..
        The RSS data shows “there has been no global warming”
        The RSS data shows “there has been no global cooling”
        The RSS data also shows you can’t say there has been anything.
        In fact, at the 2-sigma level of confidence, the RSS data shows……. NOTHING


        If you go to 1-sigma significance the discussion changes.

      • Mr. Monckton,

        At present we do not have enough resolution in measuring ocean temperatures to know whether they are increasing or not.

        I will certainly look into the methods and data collected by ARGO, as well as the climate records they used pre-ARGO. However, I think it is fair to say that we know ocean temperatures are increasing. We have sea level rise, arctic sea ice decline, Greenland ice mass decline, and despite some antarctic ice growth, there is a net decline in antarctic mass, all in addition to the ocean heat content data collected by NOAA. Thus it appears there is still a net heating of the planet, even (especially) since 1996.

  60. The Pope seems intent on marrying the Roman Catholic Church to the “Church of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming”.

    Well, this Roman Catholic is not going to succumb to Vatican environmentalism … and as far as this Catholic is concerned, the Pope can go get ‘f _ _ _ _ _’ … he has lost his moral compass! Yes, I’ll do my ten ‘Hail Marys’ and several acts of contrition as penance … but I’ll never follow the Pope on this issue.

  61. “Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.”

    Not quite. I’m sure some ingenious Warmist could argue that there is a delay in the system, and claim that the current extreme weather is a result of the warming that was occurring twenty years ago. I’m sure another could argue that the current extreme weather is a result of the current high temperatures even if the temperature is not getting higher. They could probably cook up some sciencey sounding explanation for it. too.

    The question I ask is “Has extreme weather become more extreme or more frequent over time?” So far the answer seems to be “No”.

    “or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge”

    Oh, come now! Don’t tell me you’ve never watched a Godzilla film. There’s your answer.

  62. “a major peer-reviewed paper published this month in the Orient’s leading science journal.”

    Which paper in which journal?

    • I am confident that neither Lord Monckton nor Anthony will let us pass away in ignorance. Live and learn…

  63. When has facts ever got in the way of Religion & Politics
    This must have been what it was like for the population of pre war Germany.
    Powerless to stop Hitler’s agenda, by ridiculing & destroying all that opposed National Socialist political beliefs

  64. There is no pause according to the Secretary-General of the WMO, Michel Jarraud it appears

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30311816
    “World on course for warmest year”

    And he (Jarraud) asserted that the new figures confirm the key trend in climate change: “There is no standstill in global warming.”

    This is a reference to the hotly-debated “pause” in global warming which has seen no major increases in temperature since 1998.

  65. What typically happens to atmospheric temperatures after an El Nino? By my eyes they typically decline presumably as the heat from El Nino is reabsorbed into the oceans and radiated into space. It will be interesting to see if this occurs after the weak 2014 El Nino and if this happens whether the temperatures will rebound afterwards with decreased solar activity. If I were a gambling man I’d wager that this is the end of the warming hiatus and beginning of a cooling phase.

  66. Dear Lord Monckton, I am glad that you are following up on the Great Pause. This pause is sufficient evidence yhat the greenhouse effect does not exist and the global warming theory is nothing but pseudo-science. You have done a lot of work and produced a useful bibliography as well. Not quite acceptable because you left my work out and its absence shows in the body of your paper. There are problems that I see and I will try to explain to you. My aim is to help you avoid mistakes in the future. First, the bad news. Your figures 2, 3, and 4 are worthless and should be thrown out. First, there is no justification whatsoever for using straight lines because the temperature wiggles are real, not random. The more technical reason is that it is impermissible to use a baseline for the twenty-first century that includes twentieth century data. And why is this impermissible? Because there are temperature regions where due to a change of physical conditions abrupt changes take place in the behavior of temperature curves. One such change happened at the beginning of this century and started the current hiatus going. The climate models used by IPCC cannot be fitted to this hiatus. A straight horizontal lne that should be used is unacceptable to model makers because this would be admitting that they are wrong. The change took place when the super El Nino receded. It was followed immediately by the step warming of 1999 which raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. For the rest of the century temperature remained at that level and formed the present hiatus platform. This warming, by the way, is the only warming we have had since 1979. The only other warming of the twentieth century lasted from 1910 to 1940 and raised global temperature by half a degree. It was followed by the precipitous temperature drop that inaugurated World War II. Unfortunately you do not see this cooling on temperature charts because these worthless “temperature experts” show it as a heat wave. As an example of what really happened, the battle of Suomussalmi in the Finnish Winter War was fought at minus forty Celsius and meter thick snow in January 1940. Stalin had dispatched two divisions and a tank column in an attempt to cut Finland in two. The Finns wiped them out. They had no anti-tank weopons so they improvised and used gasoline bottles with a fuse attached which were thrown at tanks. They nicknamed it “Molotov cocktail.” Having lost all their tanks, the Russians were duly impressed. Next year when Stalin and Hitler had a falling out the Russians themselves started using Molotov cocktails on German tanks, and that is where history picked it up. Recovery from WWII cooling was slow and temperature did not reach the 1940 level again until 1980. And from that point on till the beginning of the super El Nino there was no warming at all and an 18 year stretch of hiatus like today existed. At the same time, ENSO was active and produced five El Nino peaks, with La Nina valleys in between, in that time slot . In a case like this, the global mean temperature is the point half-way between the tip of an El Nino peak and the bottom of the adjacent La Nina valley. I marked them in Figure 15 in my book and found that a straight horizontal line could be fitted to them, meaning that constant temperature existed in the eighties and nineties. I cannot show it but if you wish I can send you a revised version. We should also take note of the fact that a third of a degree warming, produced in only three years, is more than one third of the official warming for the entire century. It would be surprising if it did not influence wildlife habitat in some way.

    Reference: Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace, 2010)

    • It is not my place to educate Mr Arrak in the advantages and disadvantages of using linear trend projection. That, like it or not, is what the IPCC uses, and so do most climate scientists. I am using their own method to show them they are wrong.

      Also, Fig. 1 is not a graph of 21st-century temperature change. It is clearly labeled as starting in October 1996.

  67. Lord Moncton: Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1).
    Jct: And since 1998, there’s been decline they used a trick to hide. Why pick 1996 to argue pause in rise when picking 1998 argues about what they tried to hide? Sad the Lord is only playing our King when the Ace sits only 2 years away. 16 years of decline is more persuasive than 18 years of pause.

    • the global warming that the IPCC had so confidently but misguidedly predicted 25 years ago has stopped altogether.
      Jct: See how less powerful it is to say it stopped than to say it declined? Why give them the hope that the pause will end when you can give them the dread that the decline won’t end. It’s as if our guys can’t pick winning cards to play.

    • Mr Turmel has not understood the simple basis for Fig. 1 in the head posting. I am not interested in making propaganda points. I go back as far in the recent temperature record as I can without finding any warming. At present, that is October 1996. In short, the starting date for the graph is calculated, not cherry-picked.

  68. This post relates to the meaning of “global warming” that is implied by this and similar papers. They assign a meaning in which it is the change in value along a straight line that has been fitted to data drawn from a specified time series in a specified period of time. The author of the paper under discussion concludes that the “global warming” has been nearly nil in a specified period of time because the slope of this line is nearly nil. Let’s call this line “line #1.” Let t1 designate the time at the beginning of this period (near Jan. 1997) and let t2 designate the time at the end of this period (near Dec. 2014)

    Now lets move the beginning of the specified period to a number of different points to the left of t1 while holding t2 constant and repeat the line fitting procedure. This produces line #2, line #3 etc. The slopes of the various lines vary.

    Using each line in the complete set of them let’s compute the “global warming” in the period between t1 and t2. Rather being a constant, the “global warming” varies. With the use of the definition of “measure” in measure theory it can be concluded that the “global warming” is not the change in a specified measure of a physical quantity between two different times As the phrase “global warming” conveys the idea of such a measure, this phrase is a misnomer.

  69. I wonder how long the Pause would be with the effects of the 1998 Super El Nino factored out.

  70. Assuming that September 2015 will end nineteen (19) years of stable temperatures worldwide, deviant Warmists’ cyclical uptick from 1979 will have lasted seventeen (17) years to 1996– less than half the satellite record not amenable to “smelly little orthodoxies” surreptitious corruption on all levels.

    On this basis, in those rare cases where psychotropic Warmists address facts at all, their bruited heatwave is but a blip, a short-term interim pause itself. The long-term –70-year+– trend is indubitably neutral/negative, quite possibly flagging a 1,500-year overdue end to dustmote Earth’s current Holocene Interglacial Epoch.

    Should this interstadial remission, punctuating periodic Pleistocene Ice Ages averaging some 102,000 years from c. 2.8-million years-before-present (YBP), revert to geophysical type, Luddite sociopaths sabotaging global coal, oil, nuclear energy economies will have many tens of megadeaths to answer for.

      • David, the JMA have not released any official statement! Their website, which hasn’t been updated since Dec 22nd, 2014, states preliminary values.

        http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

        The only ones making the ‘hottest year eva‘ claims ATM are the MSM.

        For the record (JMA):- 2014 (+0.27°C), 1998 (+0.22°C) above the 1981-2010 average. Or a whopping, life threatening, the oceans are boiling, were all gunna die, 0.05°C difference (or 0.1°F).

        Can someone tell me what is the error margin in modern day temperature recording?

      • I will also add David, an official statement from the JMA made on the 22nd Dec, states;

        The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature for the year 2014 (i.e. the combined average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the sea surface temperature) is estimated at +0.27°C* above the 1981-2010 average, likely to become the warmest record for the 124-year period since 1891 (Figure 1).

        *Note that this figure (hence its rank in the record, either) is still subject to change, because at the moment of this announcement it is only a preliminary result that was calculated based on temperature observations for the period of January to NOVEMBER in 2014.

      • An addition to the addition David. At the time of this post, dated Jan 9th, 2015 (AESST), JMA have not even analysed and released data for Dec 2014! At the end of JMA’s official statement (dated 22nd Dec, 2014) we have this;

        The final report on the global temperature for 2014 is scheduled to be published early in February 2015.

    • Lloyd Martin Hendaye:
      “Stable” is the wrong word. We’ve had 19 years of “fluctuating” temperatures. When a straight line is fit to a global temperature time series points along this line lack a property of a temperature. This property is the state of being a measure.

  71. UAH for December is now in.
    UAH 5.5 is negative to January 2005 which is an even ten years. According to Walter Dnes: slope of -1.76E-07 C degree
    per year
    Version 5.5 came in at seventh warmest for 2014.
    UAH 5.6 is negative to January 2009 which is an even six years. Version 5.6 came in at third warmest for 2014.

      • Presumably it is. But why publish both if one is better? Yet version 6 was to bring it closer to RSS, so perhaps 5.5 is better since it is closer to RSS than 5.6. I wish I could give a better answer, but I cannot.

      • The real test is how well both agree with surface instrument measurement.

        Then RSS is best. From the post:

        Steven Goddard writes: “The graph compares UAH, RSS and GISS US temperatures with the actual measured US HCN stations. UAH and GISS both have a huge warming bias, while RSS is close to the measured daily temperature data. The small difference between RSS and HCN is probably because my HCN calculations are not gridded. My conclusion is that RSS is the only credible data set, and all the others have a spurious warming bias.”

  72. Nitpicking on leaves, branches and trees, … and forgetting the forest.
    From which r^2 should one assume that it is worth drawing a regression line behind a high variability plot?

  73. Why is the JMA plot so different from the other 4~5 temp plots data sets? JMA shows a steady increase, the others don’t.

  74. The long and ongoing series of ‘hiatus/pause’ posts by Christopher Moncton have stimulated educational comments by climate change protagonists and antagonists alike. For that I appreciate them. However, strategy wise, shouldn’t there be a prominent focus within them on countering the inevitable climate exaggeration build-up to the Paris Climate Conference this Fall? Please augment future post with that context in mind. We should anticipate where the climate exaggeration ball is going to be and have the intellectual deconstructs already there. Thanks.

    John

  75. Here’s the link the the peer reviewed paper “Why Models Run Hot” by Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs.

    http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml (In the Chinese science bulletin.)

    I found the link to it on William Briggs’ blog – date Jan 14. (my birthday). A good summary on that page also – http://wmbriggs.com/blog/

    I found the paper mentioned on a good very recent interview by Monckton on King World News also: http://kingworldnews.com/lord-christopher-monckton1-10-15/

    KWN is a great site on economics / safehaven investing (gold/silver) and the failure of disastrous Keynesian economics, ie the real threat facing to the world…

Comments are closed.