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.
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).
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).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-WS-Fcst.gif
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.
rooter,
Planet Earth disagrees with you. Which one should we believe? The planet? Or you?
You know, you can’t both be right.
The thing is, db, people like Rooter want you and me to put our money where their mouth is.
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.
rooter,
Satellite data is the most accurate data there is. I know you hate that fact, but there it is.
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.
Satellite data is the most accurate there is says dbstealey. Guess why they adjust the MSU/AMSU so much. But there are satellite temperature data that does not require that amount of adjustment, Probably the best satellite temperature data. ATSR for SST:
http://www.technology.org/texorgwp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sea-surface_temperature_node_full_image.jpg
You might just as well use Hadsst3:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/last:218/plot/hadsst3gl/last:218/trend
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.
Rooter, SST is determined by insolation. CO2 has nothing to do with SST. But you know that.
dbstealey thinks that warming of oceans is not warming. Only RSS can show anything about temperature on earth. Cherrypick the outlier.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1997/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/offset:-0.14/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1997/offset:-.014/trend
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.
They call it a “pause”, rooter, or a “hiatus”. Those terms mean exactly the same thing as “stopped”.
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?
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….
You might want to read what Luboš Motl has to say about this in reference to the global average temperature calculations. :
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2015/02/if-done-right-temperature-adjustments.html
also Climate etc raw versus adjusted temperature
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
He calls Mosher a skeptic? Really? In the time that I have been reading, I always thought that he was a sarcastic table-thumping warmunist.
This is big. Other media will pick up on this. It is all about selling soap and now the media has discovered that temperature cooking sells soap big time.
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.
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 …….
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.
Nope, it is easy to see w/o plotting a LR trend, that 1993-2006 is much steeper.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2006
We all have seen the the failure of the IPCC predictions A, B and C plotted against measurements.
Nope, it is easy to see w/o plotting a LR trend,
Try it.
Slope 1974-1006 0.21C/decade, 1990-2006 0.23C/decade. Both higher than 0.20.
Oh really?
http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/01/ipcc-greenhouse-gas-ghg-co2-business-as-usual-bau-co2-gases-ipcc-ar5-spm-scenario-a-hansen.html
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%.
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.
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?
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.
Thanks, I think you made my point.
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.
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;
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.
(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
The truth is often harsh.
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.
True. But it needs to drop from 0.367 to lower than 0.236 at least.
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.
This graph:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/trend
shows the trend of RSS temperature anomaly before global warming stopped in 1997 (green) and the trend across the whole dataset, including the pause (blue).
The overall trend, including the pause, is substantially steeper than the trend while the world was still warming before 1997. What’s up with that?!
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.
Thank you, Christopher. You have put the terrifying increase in ocean heat content into perspective. By any measure, 0.2°C per century is trivial.
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:
Why not trust Spencer’s authority on this dbstealey? Has he none?
Go away, pest.
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.]
Weird
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.
Coffee mug idea: Galileo (with Lord Monckton’s head photoshopped in) peering through telescope at … the RSS record. Caption: “Eppur si non cresce caldo.”
Again, as i keep saying…
Stop using anomalies.
Simple.