Warming stays on the Great Shelf

Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 2 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature shows a sharp uptick to warmer worldwide weather than for two years, shortening the period without warming by a month to 18 years 2 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 2 months since December 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

As papers continue to appear in the literature claiming that the climate models were right all along except that they were wrong, the widening of the divergence between excitable prediction and unalarming reality continues (Fig. 2).

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 January 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

A quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or a little below half of the central estimate of 0.70 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, in IPCC (1990). The outturn is well below even the least estimate.

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 January 2015, 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 near-zero 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 218 months from December 1996 to January 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.

The RSS dataset is arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that it shows the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets (though UAH runs it close). 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. Besides, there is in practice little statistical difference between the RSS and other datasets over the 18-year period of the Great Pause.

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 reference 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. 4:

clip_image008

Figure 4. 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.

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the much-altered terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. However, over the entire length of the RSS and UAH series since 1979, the trends on the mean of the terrestrial datasets and on the mean of the satellite datasets are near-identical. Indeed, the UK Met Office uses the satellite record to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

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. It remains possible that el Nino-like conditions may prevail this year, reducing the length of the Great Pause. However, the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to widen.

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 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below 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.

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.

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.

Besides, 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.

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication NOAA craftily convert the temperature change into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem larger. Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals just how little ocean warming is occurring.

Is some underlying rate of global warming captured by the ocean temperature measurements? Well, the terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming.

clip_image010

Figure 5. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NODC Ocean Climate Lab: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT. The heat content has been converted back to the ocean temperature changes in fractions of a Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule temperature change data to Zettajoules, combined with the exaggerated vertical aspect of the graph, has the effect of making a very small change in ocean temperature seem considerably more significant than it is.

183 thoughts on “Warming stays on the Great Shelf

  1. “This month’s RSS temperature shows a sharp uptick to warmer worldwide weather than for two years, shortening the period without warming by a month to 18 years 2 months.”

    What exactly is being said here? Did last month show warming or not?

    “The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 218 months from December 1996 to January 2014 – more than half the 432-month satellite record.” ???

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • Yes, there was warming during the last month. Every time there is an up spike, there is warming and every time there is a down spike, there is cooling. However one way of looking at the last 18 years and 2 months is that the area above the 0 line is more or less equal to the area below the zero line. So the warmings and coolings balanced out over the last 18 years and 2 months.

  2. Thanks, Lord Monckton.
    Is this period after the global warming since 1975 a pause? A maximum?
    If the Solar influence dominates the Earth’s climate at this time, then we’ll see a maximum. If CO2 dominates, we’ll see a pause that ended. But if ENSO dominates, we’ll see what it brings.

  3. The three largest spikes in Figure 3 occurred in 2007, 2010, and 2013. Are we due for another spike in 2016? Or is the three years between spikes just a coincidence?

    • Yes. A moderate El Nino for the fall of 2016 into winter 2017 is quite possible. But an intervening La Nina is also more likely THIS fall (2015) to winter 2016 which will keep the record flat. After 2017, all bets are off as the solar cycle minima is approached in 2021… beyond that will there be a credible cycle 25? or a Maunder or a Dalton minima. No one knows. No current model can predict where the Sun is headed after the current Cycle 24 hits bottom around 2020-21. And it is the sunlight that fuels the El Ninos and those spikes in the temperature anomaly record you mention.

      • I believe that the heat absorbed into the oceans (mostly UV) is what drives the climate on our planet. The potential heat in the ocean dwarfs anything in the atmosphere. I believe the people studying the ocean oscillation cycles and how they intersect over time are much closer to being able to describe and predict what is happening in the climate and how it is likely to change over the coming years. The solar cycles govern how much heat goes into the oceans. Understanding both of these in tandem will likely be the greatest avenue to understanding what has happened and what will happen as we move forward.

  4. Great post.

    Spot on with the ARGO data — barely 10 years of data from extremely sparsely populated collection points — points from buoys that are free floating and never take the temperatures in the same place twice and could never predict a trend.

    HADCRUT likes to post global temperature back to 1850, roughly the start of the Industrial Revolution, but the oceans comprise roughly two thirds of the surface of the Earth, and there are no temperature recording for these areas. Add to this the poles and other wilderness not occupied by humans and the actual Global LST coverage is probably 25%.

  5. Whether there is slight warming or not, the point to be taken is that the catastrophic warming predictions of the modellers, 1980s, 90s and 2000s failed. The concept that CO2 is the control knob on the global thermostat is, as of yet, totally unproven.

    • I tried to post a carefully crafted refutation of the IPCC models prediction on Climatecentral.org yesterday to an over-hyped alrmaist temperature scenario article they posted. It never got out of moderation. They squashed it. In actual practice, it is Climatecentral.org, and hyperwarmist-alarmist crowd are the de***rs.

      • 100%

        They also often are the same people who pretend to be athiests, yet believe more strongly than any religious person I’ve met, including every priest I’ve known.

      • ” It never got out of moderation.” Your effort had value nonetheless. It is always interesting to read about these attempts to get through.

  6. I’m curious why you used RSS to build your figure. RSS is known to have the lowest global land and ocean temperatures and thus the graph paints a bit of a biased picture. Granted some of the other datasets are biased on the other end of the spectrum. Wouldn’t the case against warming be stronger if the analyses wasn’t so biased and included a proper analysis of all of the data?

    • Using all data and averaging it, as GISS, HARCRUT does, does not provide better data. I’m curious why you think that it might?

      Excluding the satellite data, there is no global temperature data. I’m curious why you don’t think so.

    • The thing about the RSS data is that they are comprised of warmist sympathizers. Ben Santer, Frank Wentz, etal, cannot be accused of being right wing deniers, so the data they provide is very informative. They are cooler in their analysis than UAH which is manned by people deemed as skeptics such as John Christy and Roy Spencer. In fact, UAH is supposedly recalibrating their process to account for their seeming bias towards warming.

  7. The funny thing with all this no warming, is when I facetiously ask people “so when does the global warming kick in?” the stock answer is now about storms becoming more extreme and that it never had to do with warming. I’m sure though, that if the temperature ever started to rise again (as per the data, at least) they’ll be back on the warming bandwagon quicker than the melting Antarctic propaganda.

    • Exactly. The entire issue was tied to human production of CO2 and that this gas was warming the planet. It’s funny how quick they have run away from that to calling it carbon pollution, etc. So, if CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, what does it cause. Apparently, it now causes climate disruption, more snow, less snow, more rain, less rain, bla bla bla. There is no end to their dissembling. But you are right, if warming returns then that will validate that more CO2 caused it.

  8. Silly Christopher. CO2 is the Magic Gas. It can disrupt the climate with nary a whisper of temperature fluctuation. And if the industrialized countries will give at least $100 Billion every year from now through 2022 to the developing world (administered by impeccably honest UN bureaucrats) the UN will then petition the climate fairies for forgiveness of our sins.

  9. The 2014 RSS spike this year can easily be explained by the considerable increase in PDO index spike during the 2014 quasi-El Nino (aka the 2014 El Nada).

    The PDO spike was very impressive, making it one of the largest one-year spikes since 1900:

    It seems likely that the 2014 El Nada is likely to switch to a La Nina later this year:

    If a La Nina does occur later this year, global temps may well spike downward for the next two years, which will drive the CAGW zealots completely crazy…

    The poor CAGW zealots were so looking forward to a strong El Nino last year… but Mother Nature had other plans…

    We’ll see soon enough.

    • If a La Nina happens and the temps follow suit, this will drive the temps downward. Now, if the AMO goes negative,(Im not sure if it is now or headed that way) how far will the temps drop then?

    • Nice graph on the PDO, that is useful info. The peaks on the graph correspond well to the 2 warming trends in the 1900s. I also have the impression that the next phase of ENSO is going to be a multi year La Nina, lasting to late 2017, or early 2018..

  10. All surface temperature data GISS, NOAA, NDCD ect), has been fraudelently adjusted. You may want to read P Homewood, Goddard, Mahorasy ect., its all over the internet and even MSM news..L Monckton’s analysis is accurate as it only includes 1979 satellite onwards. Most surface data before has been adjusted to show massive warming which means there is no current pause, the pause has probably been going on for about 1200 years by now. The oft quoted 0.7, 0.8C ect of warming is probably way way off. I reckon about 0Co is accurate which also means that all the analysis done by WUWT, Mcintyre ect is now meaningless

  11. The nagging question for me with all these “facts and figures” tbat still won’t go away is,
    if you remove all the adjustments and homogenisation.
    How much of their global warming is left?

    • I’m working on answering that question (spent all day working with matrices and file conversions, already have an equal-area grid system (versus the lazy 5×5 or 1×1 coordinate cell systems commonly used), and have most station data up to 11/2013 ready for analysis). Now just to get it all to work together…

      My first move, of course, is simply to recreate the current datasets to validate my system. From there, I can start doing some really in depth examinations on the data on any scale I desire (all this code will be open source, as will all source data).

      • Should make for interesting reading.
        But you do know, if you lower the planets temperature you will be “wrong”?

    • I undertook the task of comparing raw data with adjusted and homogenized data a while back. It turns out that if you average all the station data without regard to location you get the same trend GISS gets from all of their processing. Just doing an average isn’t valid, of course, but the effect of their data analysis on the temperature anomaly trend seems to be nil.

      http://sextant.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-science.html

    • 0.6 is about 0.38 above the present zero line. At the other end, we have several months of points close to 0.27 below the zero line. As a very rough guess, I would say it has to go to 0.6 and stay there for about 5 months before the straight line no longer starts before December 1997.

      • It’s easy enough to work out. The negative trend could disappear in one of several ways. Either a large increase in temperature for a few months, or remaining at the current level until August next year, or a modest increase in the anomaly to 0.42 deg C until this time next year, or some similar combination of anomalies, and the zero trend will vanish into thin air.

  12. Monckton says:

    “The RSS dataset is arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that it shows the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets (though UAH runs it close).”

    Monckton seems to be unaware of the evaporation and latent heat transport during ninjos. Heat is transported into the troposphere when the tropical SST ramps up during ninjos. Illustrates how tropospheric temperatures varies more because of enso. Also more downturn during ninjas. Illustrates how surface and troposphere differ.

    Some basic knowledge does not hurt.

    The increase from 1997 to 1998 in RSS is 0.59 deg C. The increase from 1997 to 1998 in UAH is 0.65. So the statement that RSS shows the 1998 ninjo more clearly is wrong. If that is the how to pick the least unreliable dataset UAH must be the chosen one.

    Some simple fact checking does not hurt.

      • icouldnthelpit

        This sub-thread initiated when you made false claims about global temperature trends. It took off when you falsely claimed I was arguing with Viscount Monckton and added this untrue claim

        Also. I hope it’s not escaped your attention but the method you are complaining about is basically what Monckton is using to show that there has been no warming for 18 years and a bit.

        Every time a claim you made was refuted you responded with another false claim, but you now assert

        I’ve not made a single claim in this thread.

        I strongly suggest that you seek help because the only person who fails to see your self-delusions is you.

        Global warming stopped more than 18 years ago, and your false claims don’t change that, so live with it.

        Richard

    • icouldnthelpit

      Using your method one can also show that global warming is reducing.

      For example, using the HADCRUT3 data the 40-year trend from 1905 has a slope of 1.46 degrees per century and the 100-year trend has a slope of 0.72. The warming trend in the early part of the 20th century is twice that of the whole century!

      The IPCC AR4 also presented the same misrepresentation as you and several people – including me – objected to it. Indeed, this thread is discussing the above article by Lord Monckton so I provide this link to his address of the issue on WUWT.

      Richard

      • Hadcrut4 1905 – 1945 trend 1.3 deg/century. The last 40 years Hadcrut4 is 1,7 deg/century. And almost half of those last 40 years (18+ years) is supposed to have no warming.

        Acceleration Richard?

      • Mods

        Please look for my several vanished posts. The misrepresentation of me in this sub-thread has stood unanswered for most of the day because my response is one of them.

        Richard

        [Reply: Sorry Richard, nothing in the spam folder. Kindly re-submit. ~mod.]

      • icouldnthelpit and rooter

        My post explained that the assertion of icouldnthelpit is bollocks.

        (a)
        His/her/their/its method is said by icouldnthelpit to indicate that global warming is increasing
        and (b)
        my post demonstrated that the method can be used to indicate that global warming is reducing.

        A method which provides direct opposite – and mutually exclusive – results is wrong.

        I said using the method is “misrepresentation” that several people – including me – objected to when the IPCC adopted it.

        icouldnthelpit and rooter, your replies to my post demonstrate that you cannot read, or you don’t understand the word “misrepresentation”, or both: I suspect both. And your posts also demonstrate that you did not use the link I provided in my post.

        Richard

      • Mods

        I have made another submission and it has vanished, too.
        Please search the bins and tell me if it is not there.

        Richard

      • icoudnthelpit says:

        You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Monckton.

        No, YOU are arguing with Lord Monckton, and with most everyone else here.

        Richard Courtney is correct. If you refuse to read his links, your mind is made up. There are others like you. Fortunately, they are in the minority. The reason is because Planet Earth is telling us that the CO2=AGW conjecture is becoming more questionable as time goes by.

        At what point will you accept what the planet is telling us? Or will you never accept it?

      • icouldnthelpit

        I wrote

        icouldnthelpit and rooter, your replies to my post demonstrate that you cannot read, or you don’t understand the word “misrepresentation”, or both: I suspect both. And your posts also demonstrate that you did not use the link I provided in my post.

        You have replied saying that in your case my points are correct in every detail.

        Furthermore you assert this falsehood to me

        Also. I hope it’s not escaped your attention but the method you are complaining about is basically what Monckton is using to show that there has been no warming for 18 years and a bit.

        NO! The two methods are fundamentally different!

        Viscount Monckton’s method is valid and the method you have asserted is not valid.

        But you say you refuse to read explanations of your errors so as well as being stupid you must remain ignorant of the methods.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        Global warming stopped more than 18 years ago and dbstealey asked you

        At what point will you accept what the planet is telling us? Or will you never accept it?

        Your reply is the latest example of your lunacy in this sub-thread and says

        When we start getting as many months of below average 20th century global temperature as months that are above average 20th century global temperature. That should do it.

        Global warming and my growth in height both stopped in the 20th century. Knowing that does NOT require as many months of my height being below its average in the 20th century as there are months that are above its average in the 20th century.

        Atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to rise but global warming stopped nearly two decades ago. As dbstealey says

        Planet Earth is telling us that the CO2=AGW conjecture is becoming more questionable as time goes by.

        Richard

      • OK. My post supporting dbstealey appeared so I will again try to an answer the post addressed to me.

        Icouldnthelpit

        Your latest daft post addressed to me says in total

        Again. This is not my method, it is Monckton’s. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Monckton.
        See his ‘Key facts about global temperature’.

        Also. I hope it’s not escaped your attention but the method you are complaining about is basically what Monckton is using to show that there has been no warming for 18 years and a bit.

        You are right about one thing. I didn’t follow your link. There’s a limit to the amount of Monckton’s turgid prose I can take.
        Sorry.

        Your method is NOT Viscount Monckton’s and – as my link demonstrates – he has objected to your method.

        Your method is very, very wrong and is fundamentally different to Viscount Monckton’s correct method. And you say you don’t understand this because you refuse to read Viscount Monckton’s words.

        Simply, your post says you don’t know what you are talking about and you are so stupid that you refuse to read the facts of what you are talking about to correct your error.

        Richard

      • Great. My first reply has now appeared when I have now provided another. Ho hum.

        Anyway, I thank the Mods for finding my first one.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        You say to me

        Richard. You’re using you’re height change as an analogy for expected average global monthly temperature. I’m not convinced that that is a good analogy.

        dbstealey asked me a question and I gave a straight answer.

        Taking your last point first,
        dbstealey asked you a question and I explained your reply is a daft answer.

        If my analogy is not “good” then please say why because I think it is precise.
        Determination that a parameter has ceased to increase does NOT require that the parameter must fall to below some arbitrary past average for some arbitrary time.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        global temperature has been rising from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and stopped rising in the 20 th century.

        My height has been rising from infancy and stopped rising in the 20 th century.

        But you say to me

        I’d expect average temperature distribution to fit a bell curve, I wouldn’t say the same for your height.

        Do you have a reason for what you say you “expect” or is your expectation a result of a brain condition?

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        I said

        global temperature has been rising from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and stopped rising in the 20 th century.

        My height has been rising from infancy and stopped rising in the 20 th century.

        But you say to me

        I’d expect average temperature distribution to fit a bell curve, I wouldn’t say the same for your height.

        Do you have a reason for what you say you “expect” or is your expectation a result of a brain condition?

        You have replied to that by saying in full

        Temperatures are observed to go down as well as up.
        A persons height from infancy to adulthood is observed to only go up and then stop.

        I’m not sure if I can make my objection to your analogy any clearer.

        I am not sure I can report your idiocy more clearly.
        Only you is claiming that global temperature did not rise in the 20 th century.
        This thread is about global temperature having stopped rising. It is NOT about global temperature falling except in your delusion.

        My analogy is precise and I strongly suggest that you have a lie down while you try to understand it.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        You said you would agree that global temperature has stopped rising

        When we start getting as many months of below average 20th century global temperature as months that are above average 20th century global temperature.

        You now explain that by saying

        If temperature was basically flat then I’d expect there to be as many outliers above average as below. Like a bell curve distribution.

        But nobody claims temperature stopped rising so became “basically flat” at the middle of the 20th century. After then global temperature rose until it stopped rising about 18 years ago. So, only an idiot would claim there would recently be as many outliers above average {20th century global temperature} as below.

        And you assert

        Richard.
        Not my figures, hence not my claims. It’s quite simple

        Clearly, only you is “quite simple”. If you are making no claims because you are not using your figures then you have only wasted space on the thread by posting words that say nothing!

        Richard

  13. In British Columbia Canada the south west coastal area has been hit with a succession of weather phenomena called the pineapple express. Basically a tropical system from the area of Hawaii. This has caused a mostly mild winter over most of Southern BC and poor skiing on the Vancouver area mountains, also a record snow fall in the Kitimat, Terrace area. A news media outlet in Canada, Global TV, its national and regional news programs report some”climate change” topic almost nightly. They are as predictable as a dog onto a bone. Tonight they were commenting on the “weather extremes” in this small part of the world and had a climate researcher from the University of British Columbia,UBC. confirming with global warming we can expect more weather extremes. There have been other climate researchers from this area on the news program confirming “climate change”, read CAGW. This is also the stomping grounds of David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver, need I say more.

    Lord Monckton the world is warming bringing with it the increasing the rate and intensity of extreme weather, poor skiing on the mountains of Vancouver is all the proof one needs. Climate researchers at UBC and Simon Fraser University have used these mountains as proof of CAGW. Children born in Vancouver today may not get to experience snow skiing.

    sarc off.

    • @nc: It is acceptable to use the changes to specific areas of the world to prove warming and/or cooling if those conditions continue for long periods of time of say 200 years. To use examples of cooling or warming for short periods of time of say one year to 50 years are not climate changes that are valuable to make long lasting predictions.
      The River Tornio in Finland has been monitored and data recorded from 1693 to 2000 for the earliest ice break up. I like this data since it began before warming groups or skeptics entered the issue of man made climate change. Thus, I consider it unbiased. The data presented by this 307 year record shows that indeed the northern hemisphere and probably the world has been warming on average since 1693. It should also be obvious that the earth has warmed since the ice age with cycles of cooling and warming since the ice age. The climate warming groups attempt to use this data by claiming that the warming is due to humans and CO2. However, when the graph furnished is examined, it shows a straight line of continuous average warming for the 307 years. What is significant is that the graph does not show any change of the rate of warming as would be expected from the 1940’s to the present due to the industrial and human increase in the burning of fossil fuels.. There is no inverted “hockey stick”. None, Nata, zilch. Thus, it shows that warming is true but doesn’t show that humans and increased CO2 have any significant warming affect.
      If the warm conditions of warming continue in British Columbia exists for an extended period of time, it will only prove that the earth climate is getting warmer on average. It will not prove that CO2 is the significant driver of that warming.

    • And todays record high for this day was 1962. So… probably not much skiing over 50 years ago either during the month of Feb. 1962

  14. “Besides, there is in practice little statistical difference between the RSS and other datasets over the 18-year period of the Great Pause.”

    RSS is the only series with flat trendline for the chosen period. Including SST. Monckton prefers the outlier.

    • rooter

      No, you are wrong and Lord Monckton is right.

      You dispute his correct statement that

      Besides, there is in practice little statistical difference between the RSS and other datasets over the 18-year period of the Great Pause.

      There is no discernible difference from zero at 95% confidence for the trend of each data set over the period. So, Lord Monckton understates the matter when he says “in practice little statistical difference between the RSS and other datasets”: there is no statistical difference between the RSS and other datasets at 95% confidence.

      And, for the same reason, your assertion of an “outlier” is plain wrong.

      Richard

      • You mean the trend for these records might actually be higher? You know the +- in the confidence intervals.

        Thanks for pointing that out.

      • Yet another of my posts has vanished. This is the third today and two posted to this thread have completely disappeared.

        Richard

      • Mods.

        I have tried to make a resubmission here, too. It has also vanished.
        Please tell me if it is in the bins

        Richard

    • rooter

      Yest again you demonstrate that you cannot read.

      Whatever you think “may be” is not relevant to the fact that the trends are statistically the same and cannot be discerned as being different from zero at 95% confidence.

      I understand that having a computer in your bedroom is fun, but please [trimmed] because at present they are wasting space on threads.

      Richard

  15. “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.”

    No support for this claim provided of course. Because it is just not true. If anything, the thermometers located in rural areas show greater warming than all stations:

    http://scitechnol.com/2327-4581/images/2327-4581-1-104-t001.html

    From here:

    http://scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.php

  16. “”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.””

    I think I understand enough to make a rough calculation of the energy in joules required to raise the temperature in the abyssal strata below 2000 m by say 0.001C but am at a total loss as to how this energy can be later transferred to raise the surface temperature.

  17. I too believe 2015/2016 will be cooler. Cold water continues to develop in the eastern equatorial
    Pacific typical of developing La Nina conditions. We`ll see.

  18. “The satellite datasets are based on reference 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.”

    Guess that is why the sensors and satellites must be replaced. And then theres is diurnal drift that must be adjusted for. And then there is adjustments for clouds. And adjustments for the effect of stratospheric cooling to the LT. Etc. No dataset is more adjusted than the MSU/AMSU LT.

      • icouldnthelpit,

        I admit, it does give me great solace to give you wild-eyed climate alarmists a good spanking. So far all you’ve got are baseless scares.But I’m not scared. Now what are you gonna do?

        Eighteen years, two months and counting…

      • icouldnthelpit,

        This has been explained many times here. Please use the archives and read the answer. I for one am tired of explaining that the start year is the alarmists’ choice, not skeptics’ choice.

    • icouldnthelpit

      You ask

      If you search through WUWT you’ll find that Monckton’s last RSS post was for 18 years and 3 months.
      Are we now counting down to zero?

      No. The difference between the indication of last month and this month is a function of the variance of the data.

      Lord Monckton is assessing what the data indicates each month. I know this is a hard concept for you, but such analysis of empirical data is something called ‘science’ and it refutes your superstitious belief in global warming during this century.

      Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        I was glad to help. If there is anything else I can “clear up” for you then please don’t hesitate to ask.

        Richard

  19. “Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all”

    Rubbish! Surface data shows warming. The RSS outlier may show no warming.

    • Oh, ‘rubbish’ yourself. RSS is satellite data, the most accurate data there is. Unlike land-based data, it does not ignore 71% of the planet’s surface.

    • Village Idiot, what is this “data” to which which you refer. Do you mean the surface temperature estimates provided by UKMO, NOAA, and NASA? If so, then these estimates do not deserve to be known as “data”. It appears that the data base for estimates of global surface temperatures reached a peak at sometime between 1960 and 1980, after which it declined sharply.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
      This casts doubt on the credibility of more recent estimates of global surface temperatures.

      • Rooter, you have made the best point possible from Nick’s three graphs. Mosher has made the same point many times here. However, one can’t help noticing that you only address the middle graph out of the three.

        The number of stations reporting drop essentially to zero in the 19th century, and the coverage is worse. What that means is that we really don’t have any sort of global temperature record for more than about 100 years.

        Is a 1.5 degree variation in 100 years a little, or a lot? Especially since there has been no significant change for the past 20 years. Are attempts at remediation of changes of that magnitude really worth the evisceration of our liberties and a cost of trillions of dollars?

  20. Mears’ use of the term ‘denialists’ indicates a closed mind, closed to the indisputable fact that the IPCC climate models, based on GISS’ work, have got ALL basic radiative, IR and aerosol optical physics wrong.

    The models are numerical tricks; a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd kind; 40% increase of energy input means no ‘missing heat’. They exaggerate lower atmosphere warming 66%, upper atmosphere cooling 36% and the increased humidity is from using ~35% more low level cloud albedo than reality in hind-casting.

    This gives more cooling than warming since the last Ice Age Maximum, exaggerates evaporation yet keeps the mean at the real level; subtle cheating only discovered in 2010. The rest of the fiddling is done by different groups so they can replicate the past; it is no predictor of the future.

    The real answer is that the water cycle keeps CO2-AGW near zero by keeping real net surface IR warming of the atmosphere near zero, also minimising radiation entropy production rate. The real AGW was the ~4% fall in cloud area in 1983, a proxy for aerosols from Asian industrialisation reducing cloud albedo (Sagan’s aerosol optical physics gives the wrong sign for the AIE). Apparent cloud area recovered in 1997.

    The only warming now is in the Southern ocean where its cloud area has decreased. This is probably from lower phytoplankton feedback as Antarctic pack ice area increases. Sorry IPCC modellers and Climate Alchemists; you are dinosaurs to be wiped out within 5 years.

  21. “However, over the entire length of the RSS and UAH series since 1979, the trends on the mean of the terrestrial datasets and on the mean of the satellite datasets are near-identical. Indeed, the UK Met Office uses the satellite record to calibrate its own terrestrial record.”

    After denouncing the surface records Monckton suddenly states that they agree with the satellites…

    Does Monckton know what he has written? This is how well do the records agree for Monckton’s 18 years:

    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/last:218/offset:-0.35/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:218/offset:-0.26/mean:12/plot/rss/last:218/mean:12/offset:-0.10/plot/uah/last:218/mean:12/plot/uah/last:218/trend/plot/gistemp/last:218/offset:-0.35/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:218/offset:-0.26/trend/plot/rss/last:218/trend/offset:-0.10

    This is a bit outdated. Hadcrut is not updated to the end of 2014 and shall have higher trend. And the version of UAH is not the version used now. UAH shall also have higher trend. Anyhow, perhaps Monckton is capable of spotting the outlier?

    The statement that UKMET uses the satellites to calibrate it own terrestial records is just wrong again. Try some basic fact checking.

    • rooter,

      You want GISS? I’ll give you GISS:

      All the running around in circles and clucking you do over tenths and hundreths of a degree is like Mediaeval priests counting angels dancing on pinheads. The reality is that the planet/climate has been unusually benign for the past century and a half.

      But alarmists cannot accept that good news and be happy about it. They always see the glass as half empty. They want doom, gloom, and pessimism, when it isn’t warranted.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening, no matter how much you wish there was. <–Falsify that statement — if you can.

    • Why are you afraid of 1/10ths of a degree changes over decades? Do you really believe billions of $$ should be spent on this year in and year out? Do you believe that there should be no change? Do you prefer a colder planet with more ice? Why?

  22. Although the trend line for the past 18 years is flat , there are considerable deviations from it during that period .
    In particular I see that the early months of 2011 and 2012 show large negative anomalies . Yet mid- year 2012 was the period of greatest arctic sea ice loss , as the pro- AGW camp sites constantly point out as proof of accelerating global warming.
    Both observations are real and unquestioned , but are they compatible ? A cooled world , but increased Arctic sea ice loss .
    Is Arctic sea ice loss not actually a good indicator of global climate changes being dependent on local temporary factors such as wind direction and velocity? .

    • mikewaite

      Both observations are real and unquestioned , but are they compatible ? A cooled world , but increased Arctic sea ice loss .
      Is Arctic sea ice loss not actually a good indicator of global climate changes being dependent on local temporary factors such as wind direction and velocity? .

      Yes, your observations are correct: The greater the loss of Arctic sea ice from today’s levels, the greater the planet cools.

      Look at September, 2012: Record low Arctic sea ice.
      October-Nov-Dec 2012.
      Massive loss of extra heat from the additional (excess!) newly exposed Arctic ocean back into space.
      Jan-Feb-March 2013.
      Record high arctic sea ice extents! Massive gain of sea ice over the winter season.

      Same thing happened in 2007. Very Low ice extents in September, 2007. Followed by massive heat loss from the Arctic Ocean that winter, and tremendous sea ice gains in Jan-Feb-March 2008, the following year.

      And several other years as well.
      But the Super-El Nino year of 1998?

      Nothing. No effect on Arctic sea ice at all! The year prior to the El Nino (1997) the El Nino year itself (1998), the next year, or the next two years. Global average temperature changes made NO CHANGE in Arctic sea ice extents.

  23. Thanks, Lord Monckton, well done again. Rub it in.
    What interests me almost as much as the stall of the temperature is the reason why people are so afraid of “global warming”. The IPCC, or as Lord Mockton uses to call them the IPeCaCs, have gotten the order from UN Minitruth to report on the human influence on increasing temperatures and climate change with a subliminal order to create panic and do some nasty scaremongering. But why are people so afraid of warmer climate? Warmer IS better! Well, I just got some money back from my heating advance payments, but anyway…
    There is a lack of communications on the subject of the positive effects of a warmer climate. These effects might, imho, be mentioned in these monthly reports on plateauing temps as well.

    • because the plot is co2 as the cause of global warming; thus control co2 and you get to control every living thing. Hitler could only dream of such control.

  24. I mostly concentrate on the CET, where ‘natives’ are continuously preoccupied with weather, ‘when in Rome do as Romans do’, so after living there for few decades, not only I picked this habit but it turned into an obsession, gone beyond tolerance.
    In this green and pleasant land winter and summer trends are always out of step with each other, to a degree that annual forecasts have no meaning, so I’ve done two one for winter and one for summer

  25. In all of these discussions, I have yet to see any mention of the 368 locations on the web site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases which each contain files of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Taken together with 36 years of satellite temperature measurements these give us a clear insight into what has actually been happening in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    My analysis of data from selected sites has revealed that both the monthly and annual changes in each of the CO2 concentration and the satellite lower tropospheric temperature generate insignificant correlation coefficients with a high probability that the coefficients are zero.

    An example is the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The correlation between the monthly CO2 change and the monthly temperature change was 0.02 with 64% probability that the value could be zero. The correlation between the annual CO2 change and the annual temperature change was 0.11 with 2% probability that the value could be zero. The Tropics Land satellite lower tropospheric temperature data from University of Alabama, Huntsville, was used for these calculations.

    Another example is from Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, where the monthly correlation between the variables was -0.01 with 80% probability of being zero and the annual correlation was -0.05 with 32% probability of being zero from comparison with the UAH Global satellite lower tropospheric temperature.

    Hence there is no causal relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and satellite lower tropospheric temperature. CO2 does not cause global warming.

    However the analysis has revealed that there is a high correlation between the annual average temperature and the annual rate of change in CO2. At Mauna Loa this correlation coefficient was 0.69 with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. Other examples are Izanz (Tenerife, Spain) 0.54, NOAA/ESRA Pacific Ocean (00N) 0.62, Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, 0.64, Macquarie Island, Southern Ocean, 0.7, all with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero.

    Clearly the temperature level drives the rate of change in CO2 concentration for reasons which may have been discovered long ago if the IPCC studies had not been restricted to only “human-induced climate change”.

    This explains why CO2 concentration lags temperature on a geological time scale, the rate of increase in CO2 does not fall to zero until the temperature has reached a critical low point, that is, the CO2 concentration continues to rise while the temperature is falling but at an ever decreasing rate.

    It also explains why the CO2 concentration has been continually increasing for the past 58 years of recording at the Mauna Loa Observatory while the temperature and the rate of increase in CO2 concentration have reached a plateau. In the first 5 years of recording at Mauna Loa, the CO2 concentration was increasing at a rate of 0.68 ppm per annum. This has increased, along with temperature, to reach a plateau of almost 2.1 ppm per annum for the most recent 15 years. The IPCC now have to explain a plateau in each of the two variables.

    • And where is dbstealey’s data from planet Earth?

      I know. RSS lower troposphere. The outlier. In the outlier some trust.

      • How about that Great Shelf, rooter? Is it not wonderful?
        Just think-18 years without warming. I bet that takes a wrinkle out of your poor, puckered brow. Before you know it, it will be 20 years without warming.
        Have a nice day.

      • Also, there is very little difference between RSS and UAH. People are arm-waving over hundreths of a degree, but in reality UAH and RSS track each other very closely.

        Satellite data covers almost the entire globe, while others ignore 71% of the planet.

        Face facts, rooter: global warming stopped a long time ago. But you just cannot accept that fact, because it deconstructs your entire belief system. If you were a good scientific skeptic, you would accept that fact, and just move on.

        But MMGW is your religion, so you keep fighting the truth: global warming has stopped. I’m sorry, we cannot help you unless you open your mind and accept reality.

      • Rooter ,
        Why are you so unhappy that the warming has stopped? For over 18 years according to your comrade Mears. Seems like this should give you cause to be glad. Eighteen years is a long time.
        By the way, 2015 will probably be La Nina- more reason to rejoice, right, rooter? Let’sjust round it up to 20 years. Think happy thoughts.

      • @rooter,

        So now you’re off on yet another tangent: sea surface temperatures?

        The reason is that whenever we post a fact that deconstructs your belief system, you deflect onto something else, like SST.

        This article shows that global warmig is still not happening, despite the endless, incessant comments that we are facing runaway global warming — comments that went on until global warming stopped, that is. We don’t see those comments much any more. But now the issue is SST??

        No, rooter. what you’re doing is the old, “Look! Over there! A kitten!” routine. What you really need to look at are global temperatures. They have stopped rising. Why fight reality?

      • dbstealey tries this:

        “The reason is that whenever we post a fact that deconstructs your belief system, you deflect onto something else, like SST.”

        Some info for dbstealey. SST is sea surface temperature. The oceans. On earth. By far the largest reservoir for accumulating heat on earth.

        Suddenly dbstealey did not like satellite measurements. I am not surprised.

      • rooter,

        I love satellite measurments because they are the most accurate.

        But when you say:

        SST is sea surface temperature. The oceans. On earth.

        You are covering only 71% of the planet. Here is the global satellite record.

      • mpainter:

        While you are in dragonslayermode: Show your energy budget that can show why the earth is not an iceball.

        Or perhaps you cannot?

      • rooter,

        It is YOU who always cherry-picks. Here is a comparison of UAH, RSS, and HadCRUT.

        Notice that they are all just about the same. Only when you nitpick by tenths and hundreths of a degree does the difference look significant.

        But it isn’t, because a hundreth of a degree is well below the error bars. Therefore, your chart is nonsense.

        Haven’t you noticed, rooter? YOU are the ‘outlier’ here. No one agrees with you. What does that tell you?

      • No need for an energy budget, rooter. Has to do with the opacity of water to LWIR. For instance, the wavelength emitted by CO2 (approx. 15 microns) is absorbed within 3 microns. I bet that you did not know that.

      • dbstealey is illustrating the divergence between RSS and the others very nicely with this:

        http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/to:2005.67/plot/rss/from:2005.67/offset:0.05/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2005.67/offset:0.14/plot/uah/from:2005.67/offset:0.09/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/offset:-0.16

        To hide the divergence he has to change offsets for RSS an UAH from 2005. That is remove the divergence from the point where that divergence cannot be denied. Even with those desperate measures dbstealey does not succeed in hiding the divergence:

        http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/to:2005.67/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2005.67/offset:0.05/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2005.67/offset:0.14/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2005.67/offset:0.09/mean:12

        Increased divergence up to 2005 which continues after that.

        dbstealey is really skillful in illustrating the divergence. And my point.

        Another trick is of course to use the outdated hadcrut3. The dataset with the smallest amount of stations and the worst coverage. And therefore the dataset with most infilling. dbstealey really loves infilling.

      • mpainter says:

        “No need for an energy budget, rooter. Has to do with the opacity of water to LWIR. For instance, the wavelength emitted by CO2 (approx. 15 microns) is absorbed within 3 microns. I bet that you did not know that.”

        That is really something. What is mpainter saying? He is saying that water is opaque to LWIR. And goes on with saying that LWIR is absorbed within 3 microns….

        So water is opaque to LWIR AND absorbs LWIR at the same time!

        That is beyond dragonslayermode. And mpainter is right. I did not know that water is opaque to LWIR and absorbs LWIR at the same time.

      • rooter,

        I see you will argue incessantly. Some people are like that.

        If global warming had continued as predicted for years and years, skeptics would have agreed that probably there was something to the CO2 conjecture. Skeptics look at facts, and make their minds up based on reality.

        Not climate alarmists, though. You folks refuse to accept reality. Global warming has stopped, even the IPCC admits that. Reasonable people look at the 10 – 18 year pause, and strongly question the belief that CO2 is the cause of global warming. That is a normal response.

        But you argue. Incessantly. And I think you would argue if giant glaciers descended on temperate zones again like they did in the last great stadial. I don’t know why you argue instead of accepting what the planet is telling us. But you do. When people tell you that you behave just like CO2=AGW is your religion, they are making an accurate observation.

        If you cannot accept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us, fine. But don’t expect people to agree with you, any more than they would agree with a Jehovah’s Witness trying to sell his religion. This is the internet’s Best Science site. There are religious blogs, maybe you would feel more at home at one of them.

        BTW, your English is very good. It is your logic that needs improvement.

      • dbstealey says:

        “I see you will argue incessantly. Some people are like that.

        If global warming had continued as predicted for years and years, skeptics would have agreed that probably there was something to the CO2 conjecture. Skeptics look at facts, and make their minds up based on reality.”

        Translation: RSS is the only temperature index that does not show upward trend from 1997. Therefore there not been any warming. We have to discard every other index that does not show the same as RSS. Why? RSS fits dbstealey’s belief system therefore it must be the right one. Forget the oceans, forget the land surface. Forget radiosondes. Forget UAH. The outlier must be right.

        Btw. I would not place my bets on RSS to continue to diverge from the others. After 2011 RSS matches UAH better and even has a higher trend. It might very well be the result of they have to stop using the NOAA15 (failing) and switch to other satellites like the Metop. Which does not have the problem with diurnal drift.

      • rooter,

        You like to denigrate satellite data, based on consensus. You say there are other temperature records that are different. You say RSS is an outlier.

        But in reality you are the outlier. Even the IPCC now admits that global warming has stopped. But your mind is made up, and apparently anything that contradicts your belief must be summarily rejected.

        That is why you argue incessantly.

      • dbstealey says:

        “Even the IPCC now admits that global warming has stopped.”

        Link please. —- Guess what. dbstealey will not provide that.

      • rooter,
        I can support it all. But I don’t wish to waste my time if you are not interested.
        So tell me, would you like to know why CO2 makes no contribution to SST?

  26. For those not familiar with the UK’s Sunday Telegraph, there was an article on Sunday by Christopher Booker – well known to many: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever. (See here.)

    That article has so far collected just short of an unprecedented 22,000 comments! As far as one can see, and based also on other bloggers’ reports, this is not necessarily spam-bots or thread-bombing, though there may be something of that going on. On balance, it looks like the game is moving into the MSM in a big way.

    Perhaps Chris M can persuade Chris B to carry this blog post next Sunday….

  27. Does anyone know what for example the turquoise lines in figure 4 represent? How were these model runs made? What kind of models were used. What kind of variables were used? Were these model runs made with same CO2 concentration scenarios. Were those scenarios different from reality? What kind of value(s) for climate sensitivity was used etc. Do we even know what those turquoise lines are?

    If we don’t know answers to these very basic questions it is totally meaningless to compare results from models to the real world data.

  28. In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century

    His Lordship is well-aware that this is at best a half-truth. The 1990 IPCC report made a range of predictions under a range of forcing scenarios. The number used here comes from Scenario A, actually the most extreme as it assumed forcings would develop as if ‘business as usual’ continued, shorthand for no or little emissions control and intensive coal combustion.

    In fact Forcing Scenario A did not occur, as his Lordship has conceded, not least in his recent SciBull paper, which found actual CO2 forcing in 2011 still well below the level projected that it would reach more than a decade earlier under IPCC Scenario A.

    In fact forcings developed somewhere between IPCC scenarions B and C and the corresponding IPCC temperature prediction was accurate – within the limits of observational uncertainty.

    Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions
    of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global
    mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be
    about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C
    to 0 5°C) This will result in a likely increase in global
    mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value
    (about 2°C above that in the pre-industrial period) by 2025.

    Under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume
    progressively increasing levels of controls, average rates of
    increase in global mean temperature over the next century
    are estimated to be about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B),
    just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0.1 °C
    per decade (Scenario D).

    When measuring the accuracy of a conditional prediction, (if this, then that) it is important to get the conditions correctly matched to what actually happened, rather than choosing a counterfactual reality just to make the predictor look bad for political reasons.The IPCC Scenario A turned out to be an overstimate of how CO2 concentrations and hence forcings would develop, which is precisely why they publish Scenarios without stating which they believe is most likely, however compared against what did transpire, the IPCC models were remarkably prescient …….

  29. 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.

    HADCRUT global mean 1990-2006, 2.3C per century equivalent.

    • You are confusing Hansen’s scenarios with the IPCC AR1. Not the same thing. And even your own reference shows that from 1970-2000, GHGs rose at 1.3%pa as opposed to Hansen’s 1.5%.

  30. There’s no problems – the ACC scam-science just invents “deep ocean heating” for the “missing heat”.

    Oh… wait.. that was debunked by NASA..
    Lets invent..umm.. got it.. “surface heating”.

    Our followers are too stupid to understand that the surface heats and cools with amazing regularity (after all, they bought the 3 mm rise in a global system that falls and rises by -700 mm to +10 000 mm!)


    I wonder what other lies these scammers will come up with for their propaganda machine?

  31. I have a question about the RSS regression trend line shown in the article’s figure 2.

    Since this is time series data, I would expect that there would be correlated errors which violate one of the assumptions of OLS. Attaching the model coefficients to the figure along with R2 based on this equation may be erroneous.

    Has Lord Monckton or anyone else tested the RSS (or any other) dataset for autocorrelation? I haven’t seen this addressed in any article or associated comments, and it has concerned me slightly that linear regression seems to be the usual method for these graphs.

    It’s been a while since grad school, and I never used time series data to any extent, but on the face of it, I might expect temperatures (or anomalies) to be correlated year to year to some unknown extent.

    I’m sure this is just nitpicking, since OLS is quite robust to violation of assumptions. I have no doubt about the quality of the satellite data, and the trend seems clear, but why the standard use of regression on these time series?

    • Autocorrelation (monthly) of other global temperature time series is about 0.85, but I would expect RSS to be a bit lower since it spikes during El Nino events.

    • Monthly yes, yearly no, and this is for anomalies, not mean temperatures for obvious reason.
      This has been explored before but certainly your question is valid.

  32. Once again, nooter reuter, villain idjit and iwantthepit have demonstrated why it is so useless to feed the trolls.

    Their desire is to destabilize an incredible blog, probably out of blog envy.
    They care not for truth and much prefer to lie.
    They refuse education while they preach nonsense.
    Circular arguments are more valuable than letting valid arguments stand. As the circular argument gets more convoluted, the harder it is to follow.

    Their beliefs are:
    No proofs are accepted.
    No science is practiced.
    Evil done for the cause is valued.

    It does appear that nooter reuter and his loathsome pals are paid by the word.

    as evidence, why would they go to so much effort and time trying to keep commenters busy answering bogus challenges?

    Warning: feed trolls at risk of losing sanity.
    Do not reply directly to troll bait.
    Ignore troll whines.
    Ignore any troll that wanders off the issue.
    If a lie needs to be countered, post it separately without identifying the troll, only the issue and do not answer trolls trying to disrupt or interrupt the comment.

    Just saying. Yeah, I know, nag nag nag…

    • I realise that to veterans of the debate these people may appear as trolls, but I remember my first exploration of the issue when I was convinced of the case for alarm, it was the discussions and rebuttals between those advocating alarm and those skeptical of it that lead me to reassess my views. As irritating and as wilfully ignorant as these people may appear to be I think they serve a useful purpose, to practise and refine your own argument, and always test it against alternative views.

      I find it off putting reading emotional responses when discussing science. My favourite commentators always take an “alarmist” at face value and as sincere in their views and make calm arguments to put across their point of view. Engaging in bickering or assigning political motives or claims of “hoax” just makes my eyes slide to the next post, just as regular alarmist comments I have heard before and come to conclusions about make me do the same.

      IMHO, if one bothers to engage at all, it should be with facts and argument only, and not by regarding the commentator as a “troll”. Because the forum is public and those who might have heard similar views and are undecided can learn from the information you impart rather than from someone’s distaste at the point of view.

      It’s just my personal view, I find any time a sincere discussion or argument opens up to be the interesting and worth reading part of a thread.

      • Agnostic:
        Your view is valid and definitely worth considering.

        There are a number of individually recognizable trolls that spend/waste time on a number of sites. There is no intention to actually compare science, but immense effort is spent twisting arguments and repeating the same lies over and over. A fair number of the worst offenders have managed to get themselves put on moderation with a few actually banned over the years.

        I am retired, but I do not have anywhere near enough time free to continuously rebut the same posters with the same lies over and over. I don’t consider the time wasted reading their twisted logic trying unravel the truth worth it. My time is precious to me as everyone’s time should be precious to themselves.

        Which does cause one to wonder just why and how these trolls can devote so much time to patrolling blogs and news services harassing commenters?
        It is well known and acknowledged that the green blob spends enormous amounts of money pushing PR campaigns which includes pushing the alarmist line on blogs. Trolls that apparently are happy to devote hours, oddly five to eight hours in a day, either don’t value their time much or they’re earning something for their efforts.

        If you read my post just above;

        “If a lie needs to be countered, post it separately without identifying the troll, only the issue and do not answer trolls trying to disrupt or interrupt the comment.”

        Facts, figures and argument are excellent when both sides are actually stating science. When one side taunts the other, demeans the commenter or the science, makes false claims; well ignorance suits them.

        Teach those who desire to understand and learn, especially since there many desire to learn. Those who pretend to participate just to cause strife refuse to accept knowledge; they pretend naivete until they get a response they want, then they’re suddenly arrogant experts with a bucketful of falsehoods, ad homs and lies.

  33. When/if the temperature goes down in the next month or two, the period of zero trend will jump up (longer) a month or two or three.

  34. Not only there is no warming since December 1996. Using RSS data, the trend from 1979-1996 is a negligible cooling -0.01 C per decade. And using HADAT2 radiosonde data, the trend from 1958-1978 is cooling -0.15 C per decade. No warming since 1958 based on satellite and weather balloons, which measure lower troposphere temperature where greenhouse effect is supposed to occur. It seems our global warming is due to UHI and ocean cycles.

    • The satellite record clearly shows no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature.

      The satellite data shows temps flat from inception (1979) up to just beofre the Super El Nino of 1998, and once again flat as from that Super El Nino to date.

      The satellite data clearly shows a one off isloated warming even co-inciding with the run up to and through the 1998 Supe El Nino. There is no postulaleted mechanism whereby CO2 levels in the 1950s through to 1996 caused that super El Nino; it appears to be a natural event.

      When one looks at the temperature record from other series, there is no first order correlation with CO2 emissions. In fact, they too support the contention that temperature has risen in steps often correlating with El Ninos.

      If one gets away from the inappropriate straight line linear fit so beloved of climate scientists, it is clear that something other than CO2 induced warming is taking place, and presently the evidenced points to that being natural in origin.

      I agree that the evidence points to such warming that has taken place b eing explained by UHI and ocean cycles, but I would add to that list station drop outs and inappropriate homogenistaion of data that has given the impression and/or led to an exaggeration of the true warming (if any) that has taken place.

      The bottom line is that all the temperature data series have issues, the error margins are wide and frankly we have no handle on global temperatures (especially prior to WW2), and presently no signal to CO2 can be seen above the noise of natural variation and/or error bands.

      We do not know globally whether it is warmer today than it was in the 1880s or 1930s, but as far as the USA is concerned, it is probably cooler today than it was in the 1930s. That is about all we can truthly and reasonably state; other claims are hocus and an over extrapolation of poor and suspect data.

      • I agree. The 1998 super El Nino is the reason why the RSS data show a warming trend when extended earlier than 1996. The year 1998 is 0.586 C warmer than 1979-1996 average. This is a one-time warming because 1979-1996 and 1997-2014 have no warming trend. The characteristic of greenhouse warming is gradual warming over long period as CO2 increases, not sudden one-time big warming.

    • It is a pity that in your plot, you only included the trend from 1979 to 1987 in addition to the overall linear straight line fit from 1979 to date.

      The linear trend from 1979 to 1987 shows almost flat temperatures; about 0.05degC per decade.

      Had you included a plot covering the linear trend post 1998 to date, it too would have shown almost flat temperatures. dbstealey blow (February 12, 2015 at 9:37 am ) sets out such a plot which shows declining temperatures (but of course he choses the 1998 El Nino as a start date).

      A proper analysis of the satellite data is that there is all but no warming trend in the data with temperatures essentially flat as from inception of the data up to just before the Super El Nino of 1998 and temperatures are essentially flat after the 1998 Super El Nino to date. The data suggests that there is simply a one off isolated warming event, namely the 1998 Super El Nino (ocean temperatures rise a little before the El Nino breaks out, and then they take time to dissipate down to their new equilibrium level).

      The 1998 Super El Nino was a natural event not triggered by the rise in CO2; in particular not that occuring post 1950 to 1997.

      The satellite data clearly shows no first order correlation between temperatures and CO2. There is absolutely no suggestion from the satellite data that suggests that CO2 drives temperature; no such signal can be dedected in the data series. Hence the need for all the unmeasured fudges to try and keep the warmist meme alive.

      Now I do not know what the future will bring, but if the #pause# continues, with every passing month CO2 sensitivity (if any) must become less and less. It is quite conceivable that within the next 5 years, all future papers will suggest decreasing levels of CO2 sensitivity (perhaps more in the region of 1) and all model projections will be outside the 95% confidence level. This is why warmists are suggesting that 2015 really is the last chance saloon to save the world; they are fearful that they will be unable to keep the bandwagon rolling onto 2020 so if no deal is done in Paris 2015 they are ‘screwed’

      The problem is India and China, aided by Australia and Canada if those two have the balls. China in Rio suggested that it would do nothing before 2020, and more recently has indicated that it will not take action to curn emissions beforfe 2030. It will make quite sure that it has its Thorium reactors working before it will agree to curb emissions, and at that stage, only China (of the industrial powerhouses) will have in place a sensible energy policy; the US and Europe will have committed suicide on what is looking more and more like a non problem which was jacked up by poor quality science and activist alarmism.

      • Richard Verney, I take it that you have not read my entry at Bevan Dockery, February 10, 2015 at 2:05 am. As the temperature level causes the rate of generation of the atmospheric CO2, the notion of a CO2 sensitivity is meaningless. The IPCC have no idea what happens to the Earth’s climate because they do not study it. Under “Principles Governing IPCC Work” on the IPCC Web site, the document states in its second paragraph:
        “ROLE
        2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, …”

        Add to that the fact that a step function of about +0.5 degrees Celsius occurred at the time of the 1998 Super El Nino and we see that none of us know what is happening with the Earth’s climate. How could sufficient heating suddenly occur to cause that +0.5 deg C step function over such a short period of time? My guess that it came from the Earth’s interior and that is at least as good as any prediction by the IPCC.

  35. Hi Nigel Harris,

    Here’s what’s up with that. Simply taking the temperature record from 1997 — the start year specifically designated by arch-warmist Dr. Phil Jones [and your graph], we see what is really happening.

    Climate alarmists like to cherry-pick certain years, and they use other than the most accurate data [which is satellite data] to support their spin. But that’s just propaganda. They cannot admit what the majority of scientists and engineers now acknowledge: that global warming has stopped, despite the steady rise in harmless CO2.

    Who should we believe? The planet, or the rapidly declining alarmist contingent? Even officialdom now admits that the MMGW scare is a ploy designed to push their agenda.

    I believe what Planet Earth is telling us. Others cannot handle the truth, and they look for ways to try and argue that global warming is still chugging along as always. But they are only fooling themselves:

  36. IT IS NOW ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT PROPONENTS OF GLOBAL WARMING HAVE BEEN FUDGING WITH WORLD WIDE TEMPERATURE RECORDS . THE QUESTION IS WHY? SIMPLY TO RAISE THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR USA AND THE CHRISTIAN WEST. AGAIN WHY? THE COMMING OF JESUS CHRIST(PBUH) WOULD BE THE DOOMSDAY FOR THE JEWS. SO BEFORE THAT HAPPENS THE CHRISTIAN WEST’S ECONOMY AND THERE MILITARY MIGHT HAS TO BE DESTROYED. AND THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE GOES TO THE NON-CHRISTIAN AND NON- MUSLIM WORLD OF CHINA AND INDIA.
    I AM SURE NOW YOU UNDERSTAND WHO IS THE REAL BENEFICIARY OF UNJUST AND IMMORAL WARS BETWEEN THE CHRISTIAN WEST AND THE ISLAMIC WORLD.

    [PLEASE, DO NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPITALS! ~ mod.]

      • Whats teh problem

        I do not see why on a science blog people get in a fluster over the correct use of English, or over the use of capitals. It is the meaning of what is said in a comment, not how it may be expressed that is important.

        No one when blogging takes the care that they would take if they were preparing a report for work. Let us not get up tight about such small and petty matters.

  37. Coffee mug idea: Galileo (with Lord Monckton’s head photoshopped in) peering through telescope at … the RSS record. Caption: “Eppur si non cresce caldo.”

Comments are closed.